Merry Christmas!
WDS
Unspecific but supportive greetings for any seasonal or otherwise
holidays or special occasions you may or may not be celebrating this or
any other time of year!
catpandaddy
"WDS" <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:hh1mr3$3ru$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I saw this on another newsgroup just now... someone who wished a "merry
christmas" was met only with "fuck you, asshole" in return. I have not
recently seen that form of response to a "Happy Hanukkah" greeting, for
example. Generally speaking, to what extent do you think some of the faiths
afforded higher "let them be" status than others, and for what various
reasons?
catpandaddy
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
news:hh2ejr$8sl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> holidays or special occasions you may or may not be celebrating this or
>> any other time of year!
> example. Generally speaking, to what extent do you think some of the
> faiths afforded
Typo correction for clarity, just in case ... "afforded" was meant to read
"might be afforded" in the above sentence.
osmium
> I saw this on another newsgroup just now... someone who wished a "merry
> christmas" was met only with "fuck you, asshole" in return. I have not
> recently seen that form of response to a "Happy Hanukkah" greeting, for
> example. Generally speaking, to what extent do you think some of the
> faiths afforded higher "let them be" status than others, and for what
> various reasons?
Any non-Christian faith is pretty much exempt from main stream criticism. I
think it is one of the few hates still permitted in this era of PC run amok.
I think that covers well over 90% of what one sees.
Doc O'Leary
WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
I think it's sad that Christians only get one brief time of the year to
be merry. Not surprising, though, when many of them hardly take one
brief hour of one day of the week to be religious.
Some of us would prefer to have good will and cheer all year long...
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
Scott Smith
And I think YOU are a grumpy old conservative kook....but Merry Xmas anyway. ;-)
.
.
catpandaddy
"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:d80aj59t2lpvoq7cb...@4ax.com...
So no serious answers to a thoughtful question. Got it.
Scott Smith
No, it's more a case of "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer".
Some people on Usenet will reply with "fuck you, asshole" to just about
anything someone posts. I doubt it's part of some vast anti-christian
conspiracy.
Oh, and by the way, merry christmas. ;-)
.
.
catpandaddy
Well, I'll let you know the next time I see someone makes an anti-semitic
comment at Hanukkah without getting called on the carpet by everyone else in
the NG. :o)
Scott Smith
Last time I checked, the phrase "fuck you asshole" wasn't considered
an anti-christian statement. It's more of an anti-asshole statement.
And as we all know, there are assholes of all races, religions, cultures, etc.
It's part of the human condition.
Happy holidays! ;-)
.
.
Scott Smith
wrote:
>In article <hh1mr3$3ru$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
>
>> Or maybe for all the bah humbug sorts...
>>
>> Unspecific but supportive greetings for any seasonal or otherwise
>> holidays or special occasions you may or may not be celebrating this or
>> any other time of year!
>
>I think it's sad that Christians only get one brief time of the year to
>be merry. Not surprising, though, when many of them hardly take one
>brief hour of one day of the week to be religious.
>
>Some of us would prefer to have good will and cheer all year long...
Well said, Doc.
Happy New Year!
.
.
Mike O'Brien
Regards,
Mike O'Brien
life is full of choices. choices have consequences
Melba's Jammin'
> be merry.
Oh, please! LOL!!! <Barb's eyes roll>
Happy Festivus, Doc.
> Some of us would prefer to have good will and cheer all year long...
You get what you give, Dude. :-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller 12/15/2009
Melba's Jammin'
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
Interesting question. The only thing that comes to my mind is that more
people have celebrated Christmas than have celebrated Hanukkah and
Christmas gatherings seem to generate as much or more ill will and lousy
memories for some people than any other holiday gathering. I've never
heard anyone expound on their lousy family Hanukkah celebration and I've
heard plenty complain about Christmas gatherings. Not very well said,
I fear, but I know what I mean. :-)
I'm not nuts about it myself (too many bad memories) but I'd never go so
far as to say, "f-you, a-hole."
Scott Smith
wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
>> Some of us would prefer to have good will and cheer all year long...
>
>You get what you give, Dude. :-)
Oh Barb, that is so NOT true!
Some of us give a great deal and get little in return.
But, that's OK. Sometimes it really does feel better to give than to receive. :-)
.
.
catpandaddy
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh3fla$iir$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> yes! and Peace on Earth as well
And to a few of the other inner-orbit planets too!
Mike O'Brien
Jules
> I saw this on another newsgroup just now... someone who wished a "merry
> christmas" was met only with "fuck you, asshole" in return. I have not
> recently seen that form of response to a "Happy Hanukkah" greeting, for
> example. Generally speaking, to what extent do you think some of the faiths
> afforded higher "let them be" status than others, and for what various
> reasons?
You're asking me to think before I'm done with my hangover. That's not
cool. ;)
Jules
> Last time I checked, the phrase "fuck you asshole" wasn't considered
> an anti-christian statement. It's more of an anti-asshole statement.
Maybe they meant 'your' rather than 'you' and it was a statement of
lustful intent rather than malice?
Doc O'Leary
Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-46...@news.twtelecom.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
> > I think it's sad that Christians only get one brief time of the year to
> > be merry.
>
> Oh, please! LOL!!! <Barb's eyes roll>
What? I certainly don't see people saying "Merry August 25th!" (August
seems to be the month most absent of holidays). Moreover, I don't see
the Merry Christmas crowd actually *being* merry. It seems to be lip
services in the vein of "have a nice day"; words they parrot to convince
themselves and others that they're not horrible people the other 51
weeks of the year. Or that they're not horrible at *this* time of the
year when they knock you to the ground in order to get the last Zhu Zhu
on the shelf.
> Happy Festivus, Doc.
I make my own days special, thank you.
> > Some of us would prefer to have good will and cheer all year long...
>
> You get what you give, Dude. :-)
That's just it. I *am* a happy dude almost all the time. That's why it
tweaks me when some people make an arbitrary choice for "tis the season"
demonstrations of good will, and remain dicks to their fellow man the
rest of the year. I mean, Toys for Tots don't mean jack if the rest of
the year is spent denying poor people health care and taking away
welfare programs that can feed them. It just seems that the people who
are so enraptured to celebrate the holidays go out of their way to make
people miserable the rest of the year.
catpandaddy
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.26....@remove.this.gmail.com...
If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" (or Kwanza or whatever) in a newsgroup and
someone else says "fuck off" in response, people tend to come to the
celebrator's defense. It just seems like a double standard is all, and I
found it curious.
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-E1...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <barbschaller-09CD...@news.iphouse.com>,
> Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <droleary.usenet-46...@news.twtelecom.net>,
>> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > I think it's sad that Christians only get one brief time of the year to
>> > be merry.
>>
>> Oh, please! LOL!!! <Barb's eyes roll>
>
>
> tweaks me when some people make an arbitrary choice for "tis the season"
> demonstrations of good will, and remain dicks to their fellow man the
> rest of the year. I mean, Toys for Tots don't mean jack if the rest of
> the year is spent denying poor people health care and taking away
> welfare programs that can feed them. It just seems that the people who
> are so enraptured to celebrate the holidays go out of their way to make
> people miserable the rest of the year.
That's mighty presumptuous of you to assume you know what everyone else does
the rest of the year. Lets put the cards on the table. How much
volunteering do you do?
Scott Smith
I think you are reading too much into it and projecting your own
feelings on the subject.
.
.
Scott Smith
Let's not forget donating to charities as well. Some people don't
have the time to volunteer, but find other ways to contribute and
help.
.
.
catpandaddy
I have elaborated on my feelings already: Curiosity borne out of
observations of very limited sample sizes, and a wish to find some kind of
unified sociological model which... well, heck with it. I like trying to
figure out what makes people so argumentative. :o)
Jules
> I have elaborated on my feelings already: Curiosity borne out of
> observations of very limited sample sizes, and a wish to find some kind of
> unified sociological model which... well, heck with it. I like trying to
> figure out what makes people so argumentative. :o)
I suspect a lot of it is just a newsgroup thing, though - and the people
who respond that way on usenet often would not do so "in person"; they're
perhaps doing it simply to stand out from the herd in an environment where
it's easy (and "safe") to provoke controversy - and "attacking" a more
mainstream religion is just more effective.
Scott Smith
> I like trying to figure out what makes people so argumentative. :o)
I think I answered that earlier with the "asshole" comment.
It's just part of the 'human condition'. ;-)
.
.
Mike O'Brien
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote
> If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" (or Kwanza or whatever) in a newsgroup
> and someone else says "fuck off" in response, people tend to come to the
> celebrator's defense. It just seems like a double standard is all, and I
> found it curious.
It is a curiosity. Christians have been around for some time and are an easy
target for some. I think it was Gandhi that said something like "I would
have been a Christian had I not met one." Given the crusades and all the
other non-Christian actions by some claiming to be "Christian" it is no
wonder we get singled out for distain. Oh well, not much one can do about
another's beliefs or actions especially if they are not trying to force
their beliefs on you..
Scott Smith
>"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote
>
>> If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" (or Kwanza or whatever) in a newsgroup
>> and someone else says "fuck off" in response, people tend to come to the
>> celebrator's defense. It just seems like a double standard is all, and I
>> found it curious.
>
>It is a curiosity. Christians have been around for some time and are an easy
>target for some. I think it was Gandhi that said something like "I would
>have been a Christian had I not met one." Given the crusades and all the
>other non-Christian actions by some claiming to be "Christian" it is no
>wonder we get singled out for distain.
And considering that "christians" continue to give themselves a
bad name and expose their hypocrisy even today (bombing
abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors, pedophile priests,
groups like the "christian coalition" meddling in politics, etc.)
I don't imagine that disdain will go away any time soon.
If "christians" simply followed the teachings of "christ" and
acted more "christ-like", I suspect less people would have
such disdain for them. Unfortunately, many "christians" act
anything BUT "christ-like".
.
.
levi
: I like trying to figure out what makes people
: so argumentative. :o)
Perhaps you might look inward for the answer.
catpandaddy
"levi" <le...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:41b5c56f-435f-4718...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Indeed. Understanding others and understanding ones self go hand in hand.
Mike O'Brien
"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote
> If "christians" simply followed the teachings of "christ" and
> acted more "christ-like", I suspect less people would have
> such disdain for them. Unfortunately, many "christians" act
> anything BUT "christ-like".
Agreed. .
osmium
> And considering that "christians" continue to give themselves a
> bad name and expose their hypocrisy even today (bombing
> abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors, pedophile priests,
> groups like the "christian coalition" meddling in politics, etc.)
> I don't imagine that disdain will go away any time soon.
>
> If "christians" simply followed the teachings of "christ" and
> acted more "christ-like", I suspect less people would have
> such disdain for them. Unfortunately, many "christians" act
> anything BUT "christ-like".
What is the rule, Scott, that causes you to surround the word christians in
quotes? How is it different than, say democrats. Would democrats be in
quotes too? If not, why not?
I am too lazy to search through the archives on Scott's background, but one
good theory, for the OP, is that a great many Amercians, in particular, have
had some exposure to Christianly as a child, and not only didn't like it,
they found something to actively dislike, the crusades or something. But
they know diddly-squat about, say Buddhism, (if indeed it is a religion).
So they criticize the things they know something about. And certainly, in a
group this large, there are going to be many outliers, people who are
lactose intolerant, people with red hair, murderers, ..... .
Years ago, I bought a multi-volume, paper encyclopedia and went through the
whole darn thing, making a list of articles I wanted to go back and read.
One recurring theme of interest was relifigions, and I even have acquired
entire books on a few religions, Mormons, Muslims, Jewsish. Alas, I have
never had time to go back and actually DO any of this reading, so I still
know as little as I always did. But even so, I know more about Christianity
than any of the other religions, for example, I know all the main holidays.
And despite the First Amendment, I got no mail delivery on Christmas day,
Which, considering the First Amendment, probably drives Scott right up the
wall. I could probably spend the rest of the day researching what kinds of
subterfuges the politicians went through to make this come about, winter
solstice or some such. But I won't.
catpandaddy
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7pph0m...@mid.individual.net...
> wall. I could probably spend the rest of the day researching what kinds
> of subterfuges the politicians went through to make this come about,
> winter solstice or some such. But I won't.
Oh, why not? You're no fun. ;o)
Mike O'Brien
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote
> What is the rule, Scott, that causes you to surround the word christians
> in quotes? How is it different than, say democrats. Would democrats be
> in quotes too? If not, why not?
As a Christian I took Scott's use of "Christian" to imply that hey are not
true Christians in their actions. From prior discussions I know he does not
believe in God or Jesus as a savior. That's his choice. Several others share
his beliefs - some going as far as mocking those that do believe. With this
I take umbrage. I do not mock their beliefs or anyone else's that is
different than mine. To each his own. Live and let live.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> That's mighty presumptuous of you to assume you know what everyone else does
> the rest of the year. Lets put the cards on the table. How much
> volunteering do you do?
We've been through this. I have and do give my time to *sensible*
causes, not whatever feel-good ineffective nonsense that some
questionably moral organization tries to shove down my throat. In
response, you've been mockingly dismissive.
And, as I have also said before, I place a priority on generosity over
charity. Just as I have a problem with the holidays merely being a
brief break from the normal selfish nature of a person, I have a problem
with people doing things they wouldn't normally do as charity. I'm a
Mac geek, so I'm instead generous with my time where I can be, and have
even helped Barb a bit; but that does not make me a good person in your
eyes, I'm sure, because I didn't make a big production of it as being
"volunteering".
Instead of being an attention whore and asking everyone to look at the
isolated good you're putting on display, try to be introspective and
look at the *sum* impact of your life on the world around you and strive
to improve the whole. I bike or walk almost everywhere; how do you get
around? My individual monthly electrical consumption is 200-300kWh, and
it's all Windsource; how about you? I could go on and on if you want to
make this a pissing match, but I doubt it would get you to actually be a
better person yourself.
Scott Smith
And it would be a better world if all people took the "live and let live"
approach on religion (or lack of religion)...instead of letting it permeate
into government, wars, daily life, etc.
Until they do, I will continue to point out the hypocrisy of religion.
.
.
John A. Weeks III
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > What is the rule, Scott, that causes you to surround the word christians
> > in quotes? How is it different than, say democrats. Would democrats be
> > in quotes too? If not, why not?
>
> As a Christian I took Scott's use of "Christian" to imply that hey are not
> true Christians in their actions.
I find it interesting how many of the high profile crimes of the era
are committed by people of religion. Look at the latest big Ponzi
schemes from Madoff and Peters. Both were big into religion, and
both prepetrated their crimes using religion. Both ended up
devastating a number of charitable organizations through their
holy deeds.
You never hear about an atheist running a huge Ponzi scheme.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Scott Smith
I have actually studied religion, many various religions, both in college
(theology courses and the political impact of religion in political science
courses) as well as studying various religions on my own. And I DID actually
take the time to read about them...and I still do. I find the subject fascinating
and dismaying in equal doses.
Yes, I was raised catholic by parents who knew no better and who were
simply following traditions, rather than actually believing in catholicism. So
I am familiar with catholicism and "christianity" from a personal level. But
it was the many flaws and holes in the concept of catholicism and "christianity"
that made me choose to seek out more knowledge about ALL religions,
including ancient mythology and pagan beliefs. Humans seem to have a
long history of needing to believe in strange and fantastic stories...and of
using them to control each other.
And, by the way, buddhism is a religion AND a philosophy. And as religions go,
it's a much more peaceful religion than "christianity", and the majority of it's
followers actually practice what they preach....unlike "christianity", IMO.
.
.
Scott Smith
>In article <hh84li$8q3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>> > What is the rule, Scott, that causes you to surround the word christians
>> > in quotes? How is it different than, say democrats. Would democrats be
>> > in quotes too? If not, why not?
>>
>> As a Christian I took Scott's use of "Christian" to imply that hey are not
>> true Christians in their actions.
>
>I find it interesting how many of the high profile crimes of the era
>are committed by people of religion. Look at the latest big Ponzi
>schemes from Madoff and Peters. Both were big into religion, and
>both prepetrated their crimes using religion. Both ended up
>devastating a number of charitable organizations through their
>holy deeds.
John, that's just a small part of the long history of religious hypocrisy in
this world. That hypocrisy probably goes back to the point when man
started creating myths and religions, since most seem to have been
created as a method to dupe, frighten, and control others.
>You never hear about an atheist running a huge Ponzi scheme.
I wouldn't put it past an atheist, but at least they wouldn't
be hiding behind a facade of religion when they do it.
.
.
catpandaddy
> In article <hh5k8i$due$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>
> Instead of being an attention whore and asking everyone to look at the
> isolated good you're putting on display
I have tried to keep my own particulars appropriately circumspect, even a
couple months ago when we were all trying to evaluate the effectiveness of
the specific programs which were brought up by the others in the discussion.
In this case I had a knee-jerk reaction to what you had said. For that I
apologize.
I want to make it clear that I don't have an issue with how anyone compares
with me personally. It's the sweeping generalizations that unseen-others
efforts are so unworthy that tend to get me hot under the collar. You label
everyone's efforts as "isolated" and "ineffective" and all that. In effect
you are putting yourself over them when you do so.
And with respect to my own wishes to learn how to become more effective, I
wanted to learn how to use the fractal methods you mentioned, and everything
I read about it was just so abstract that I couldn't figure out how to apply
it. I could have used some help or tutoring or coaching to get up to speed
on it, and all you told me when I requested it was that I had to figure it
out for myself, and to just keep reading. It's like a weight training coach
telling you to read a book instead of actually coaching you. Book knowledge
does not guarantee being able to put it into practice or even knowing how
correctly you are doing so.
I guess the short version is, I needed a coach and I got a reference
librarian. It was very frustrating.
catpandaddy
> In article <hh5k8i$due$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> charity. Just as I have a problem with the holidays merely being a
> brief break from the normal selfish nature of a person, I have a problem
> with people doing things they wouldn't normally do as charity. I'm a
> Mac geek, so I'm instead generous with my time where I can be, and have
> even helped Barb a bit; but that does not make me a good person in your
> eyes, I'm sure, because I didn't make a big production of it as being
> "volunteering".
That's not true. Generosity in everyday living is important, and you are a
good person for it. "In my eyes" doesn't enter into it. Generosity speaks
for itself, and speaks well of you.
I think you are confusing me with Mike again, with the "big production"
comment. Mike was the one who held specific programs up for observation and
takes a strong pro-religion stance on things, talking about how people who
share his religious faith are big-time generous volunteers. The rest of us
who participated in the thread focused primarily on how Mike's programs were
structured and implemented.
Many people's efforts probably are, as you put it, very isolated or
ineffective or unworthy. Some people's perhaps not as much. I know that I
am not an expert on anything. I'm still trying to learn and I know there is
still so much yet for me to figure out. I don't always know how to put my
queries out there, but I have to keep trying if I want to make any progress.
Melba's Jammin'
Doc O'Leary <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
> I'm a Mac geek, so I'm instead generous with my time where I can be,
> and have even helped Barb a bit;
Yes, you have, and I remember your generous spirit every time I re-size
a pic for posting to alt.binaries.food. :-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller 12/15/2009
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> It's the sweeping generalizations that unseen-others
> efforts are so unworthy that tend to get me hot under the collar. You label
> everyone's efforts as "isolated" and "ineffective" and all that.
I did no such thing. I don't know what any particular individual is
doing, let alone everyone, so I can't comment to that extreme. All I
can say is that *most* of feel-good charitable contributions I see being
done, be it in time or money, gets wasted because they don't take the
simple scientific step of measuring the result against an expected
outcome.
> In effect
> you are putting yourself over them when you do so.
If something can be done better, why *shouldn't* I put it above the
current way of doing things? Why *shouldn't* the people doing it the
current way be *eager* to adopt a more productive process? There is a
really tiresome streak in America that maintains you're not "with us"
unless you believe we're the best at everything. I don't care if we're
the best or not, I only care if we can be better than we already are.
> I could have used some help or tutoring or coaching to get up to speed
> on it, and all you told me when I requested it was that I had to figure it
> out for myself, and to just keep reading. It's like a weight training coach
> telling you to read a book instead of actually coaching you.
I am not your coach any more than I am Barb's Mac tutor. You're not
paying me to help you on your schedule and on your projects, so I do
what I can to help on my terms. Since you gave up on your own efforts
and instead became dismissive, I don't really see how I can or should be
expected to help you further. A weight training coach doesn't help you
get stronger by lifting the weights for you, you know.
catpandaddy
That's fine, and I accept where I failed. I'm not saying that what I
expected of you was realistic, just clarifying how my own expectations went
astray of what was reasonable. To that end, I'm going to try to regroup and
figure some things out. I get way too far ahead of myself.