Join a Union - to thwart Nasty Nats Employment law
Patrick FitzGerald
In Union there is strength
United we stand divide we fall.
Any sensible person seeing the law amendments that the nasty nats are
proposing for their working condition should join a Union for
protection and to defeat Katie plans.
If you are not in a Union, join one today. The way the nasty nats are
going you will need a Union to survive.
Patrick
religionofpeas
What a load of bollocks!
David
what are th enew laws proposed?
if is anything like the Employer's Contract Act
you might be on to a winner...
Patrick FitzGerald
<merd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>What a load of bollocks!
Not so Liberty!!
The religion of peas consists only of you and the Brash Man eating
warmed up frozen peas and corn beef
Patrick
religionofpeas
>
> The religion of peas consists only of you and the Brash Man eating
> warmed up frozen peas and corn beef
>
> Patrick
The religion of poos is actually Islam. I was just being polite in
calling it 'peas'. It was a mistake to be so polite.
As far as you wanting to cosy up with others in order to get what you
can from your employer. Bollocks to that again. If you've something
good to sell to someone, then sell it to them, and they'll pay what
they're willing to pay. If you're too fucking wimpish to stand on your
own achievements, then yeah, by all means, join a union - just another
gang only without the patches.
Patrick FitzGerald
<merd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>. If you're too fucking wimpish to stand on your
>own achievements, then yeah, by all means, join a union - just another
>gang only without the patches.
That is an accurate description of Business New Zealand - the
Bosses Union.
Patrick
hellicopter
But what are they too do, they can't rider all their numerous
personally owned motorcycles at once! Many collectibles!
Sure that's an argument for rider insurance to jump on
any motorcycle, but the cost to running a named driver
on a specific machine would not be taken up by everyone.
Those wanting to lend their bikes to their family and
friends to ride.
But hey that was another debate, or what past for the
propaganda the MSM allowed us to understand the ACC levy
rises.
David
> On Dec 22, 7:48 am, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The religion of peas consists only of you and the Brash Man eating
> > warmed up frozen peas and corn beef
>
> > Patrick
>
> The religion of poos is actually Islam. I was just being polite in
> calling it 'peas'. It was a mistake to be so polite.
Describing someone's religion in these terms is disgusting.
As a member of this newsgroup I disassociate myself from
these comments absolutely.
religionofpeas
What's disgusting, horrifically, is to teach children to
ritualistically behead people with a knife. A religion that teaches
that, deserves to be described in the most disgusting terms possible.
David
Islam does not teach that...
please cite....
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, don't tell it to me, tell it to these kids -
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/do-not-insult-muslim-child-and-friends-beheading-man-while-praising-allah-video.html
- because I'm not going to bother debating it with you. Islam is
disgusting, no apologies you can make for it will change that fact.
WorkHard
You aren't a member. This is not a membership.
Rich...@hotmail.com
The boys had dark hair. Does that make all dark haired children
disgusting? Or would it be worse if they were all Ginga?
Involving children in such a film is disgusting, but what makes you
think that it is typical of all Moslems, or even of that religion in
particular? Are all Irish terrorists? Should the family of a murderer
all be imprisoned or killed as well?
Your thinking appears to be similar to that of National in trying to
stir up hatred of beneficiaries generally by cynically highlighting
details (and possibly selected details) of some beneficiaries. They
are doing the same thing with employment law - characterising all
employees as exploiting employment law to the detriment of honest
employers.
Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.
religionofpeas
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 23, 7:05 pm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 23, 5:22 pm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Dec 22, 7:48 am, Patrick FitzGerald <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > The religion of peas consists only of you and the Brash Man eating
> >> > > > > warmed up frozen peas and corn beef
>
> >> > > > > Patrick
>
> >> > > > The religion of poos is actually Islam. I was just being polite in
> >> > > > calling it 'peas'. It was a mistake to be so polite.
>
> >> > > Describing someone's religion in these terms is disgusting.
> >> > > As a member of this newsgroup I disassociate myself from
> >> > > these comments absolutely.
>
> >> > What's disgusting, horrifically, is to teach children to
> >> > ritualistically behead people with a knife. A religion that teaches
> >> > that, deserves to be described in the most disgusting terms possible.
>
> >> Islam does not teach that...
>
> >> please cite....- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Well, don't tell it to me, tell it to these kids -
> >- because I'm not going to bother debating it with you. Islam is
> >disgusting, no apologies you can make for it will change that fact.
>
> The boys had dark hair. Does that make all dark haired children
> disgusting? Or would it be worse if they were all Ginga?
>
> Involving children in such a film is disgusting, but what makes you
> think that it is typical of all Moslems, or even of that religion in
> particular? Are all Irish terrorists? Should the family of a murderer
> all be imprisoned or killed as well?
>
> Your thinking appears to be similar to that of National in trying to
> stir up hatred of beneficiaries generally by cynically highlighting
> details (and possibly selected details) of some beneficiaries. They
> are doing the same thing with employment law - characterising all
> employees as exploiting employment law to the detriment of honest
> employers.
>
> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>
> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
disgusting. Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
Rich...@hotmail.com
<merd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 23, 8:16�ｿｽpm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 23, 7:05�ｿｽpm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 23, 5:22�ｿｽpm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> employees as exploiting employment law to �ｿｽthe detriment of honest
>> employers.
>>
>> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
>> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
>> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
>> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>>
>> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
>> given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
>
>Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
>disgusting.
No such implication - if anything, the opposite
>Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
>enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
>adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
>best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
>blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
As I understand it there are various beliefs within Islam - with
Sharia and Sunni being two different groups in Iraq for example. Do
they all support Sharia law? Does that law always teach childrent o
behead people with a knife?
Of course not - you are letting your bigotry, or your fantasies, run
away with you.
religionofpeas
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:26:55 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 23, 8:16 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
> >> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> employers.
>
> >> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
> >> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
> >> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
> >> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>
> >> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
> >> given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
>
> >Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
> >disgusting.
>
> No such implication - if anything, the opposite
>
> >Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
> >enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
> >adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
> >best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
> >blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
>
> As I understand it there are various beliefs within Islam - with
> Sharia and Sunni being two different groups in Iraq for example. Do
> they all support Sharia law? Does that law always teach childrent o
> behead people with a knife?
>
> Of course not - you are letting your bigotry, or your fantasies, run
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shia, not Sharia. Shia and Sunni are two different sects. Sunni is the
largest, totalling about 90% of the muslim world. Shia is the second
largest, and together they leave very little room for other sects.
Other sects are pretty much irrelevant, either being ignored, or
suppressed, sometimes to the degree that you see in that video, by
other muslims. Within Sunni Islam there are four main schools of
Islamic jurisprudence, with the differences between them being
superficial rather than fundamental. Sharia - Islamic law - arises
from the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sira and has been put together by Islamic
Scholars over hundreds of years. There are muslims who take Sharia
very seriously, who will practice it as it is meant to be practiced,
and who will impose it on other muslims and non-muslims alike - hence
the muslims that you see in that video. There are muslims who don't
take it so seriously, who perhaps do not even realise those laws
exist, who are ignorant of the foundations in the Qur'an, Hadith and
Sira, or who, if they do know they exist, choose to ignore them
because they are too disconcerting to confront. That many muslims do
not live by the strict code of Sharia, because they have adopted
western ways, or simply don't care about their religion enough to
become too devout, or perhaps are intelligent enough to reject it,
doesn't mean that it is not part of Islam or that it is not a danger.
That many muslims don't appear to live by it, also is no indication
that they reject it. New Zealands very own Muslim MP is on record as
saying he supports the stoning of homosexuals as per Sharia law. He
said that he had to, because he is muslim (and he is right). He only
admitted this because he was pressed on the issue. If he hadn't been
pressed, no one would ever have known. It's a good thing that there
are people who do press, rather than succumb to your silly idea that
no one should ever judge.
Rich...@hotmail.com
Thank you for the clarification 'religionofpeas'. Yes I got it wrong
about Sharia / Shia.
I do however still maintain that there are writings in both the
Christian Bible (in its various forms) and the Qur'an (in its various
forms) that are not believed by all adherents to those faiths - they
are seen as historical punishments or allegorical, or even outdated,
but are not believed.
We should, from evidence, be able to accept that there are many
Moslems living in our own country and in others who are very happy to
abide by the laws of the country that they live in and do not have
religious beliefs that conflict with those laws; to believe that many
New Zealanders believe in stoning an adulterer for example would be
just as false.
By making blanket judgements on a class of people without evidence is
bigotry and religious discrimination - such attitudes and beliefs are
thankfully not widely held in New Zealand
religionofpeas
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:47:08 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didnt' say that many New Zealanders believe in stoning. I said that
New Zealands only muslim MP believes in stoning, so don't twist what I
say. I also said that just because there are no outer signs of that
belief, doesn't mean that that belief isn't there, and that New
Zealands only muslim mp is an example of that. I do not make an
assumption here. You do, which is a dangerous thing to do. Making
assumptions is to keep your guard down and to go off into the world
blindly.
You make certain assumptions about Islam that is false, absolutely
false. But I guess it makes you comfortably happy.
Pooh
"David" <dafy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e1e63d6-5100-4456...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
#################################
It's Patsy David. What can you expect from it except foul lies and one eyed
Labour retoric?
Pooh
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Patrick FitzGerald
>
>Describing someone's religion in these terms is disgusting.
>As a member of this newsgroup I disassociate myself from
>these comments absolutely.
>
>#################################
>
>It's Patsy David. What can you expect from it except foul lies and one eyed
>Labour retoric?
>
POO your foul stench has led you into falsely attributing comments
to me. What else should we expect from a nasty POO liar ?
POO I await your apology for your foul, vile lie
Patrick
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:26:55 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
<merd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 23, 8:16�ｿｽpm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 23, 7:05�ｿｽpm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 23, 5:22�ｿｽpm, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> employees as exploiting employment law to �ｿｽthe detriment of honest
>> employers.
>>
>> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
>> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
>> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
>> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>>
>> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
>> given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
>
>Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
>disgusting. Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
>enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
>adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
>best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
>blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
I understand that there's a lot of head-chopping going on in
Mexico - they're all Xtians there.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
religionofpeas
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:26:55 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 23, 8:16 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
> >> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> employers.
>
> >> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
> >> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
> >> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
> >> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>
> >> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
> >> given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
>
> >Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
> >disgusting. Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
> >enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
> >adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
> >best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
> >blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
>
> I understand that there's a lot of head-chopping going on in
> Mexico - they're all Xtians there.
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which christian texts and doctrines are these head choppers acting
upon?
David
> "David" <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
:>0-
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
<merd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 24, 12:02嚙緘m, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:26:55 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 23, 8:16嚙緘m, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>>
>> >> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Dec 23, 7:05嚙緘m, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Dec 23, 5:22嚙緘m, David <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> employees as exploiting employment law to 嚙緣he detriment of honest
>> >> employers.
>>
>> >> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
>> >> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
>> >> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
>> >> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>>
>> >> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
>> >> given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
>>
>> >Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
>> >disgusting. Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
>> >enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
>> >adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
>> >best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
>> >blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
>>
>> I understand that there's a lot of head-chopping going on in
>> Mexico - they're all Xtians there.
>> --
>>
>> Brian Dooley
>>
>> Wellington 嚙瞇ew Zealand- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Which christian texts and doctrines are these head choppers acting
>upon?
Ditto for Muslims - numbers please.
religionofpeas
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:58:30 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 24, 12:02 pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:26:55 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
> >> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:22:51 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
> >> >> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 23 Dec, 18:19, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> > > On 22 Dec, 18:24, religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> employers.
>
> >> >> Most New Zealanders are more tolerant, and not as judgemental based on
> >> >> anecdotes. Most New Zealanders do not want a dishonest community where
> >> >> the vulnerable are all blamed for misfortunes that may not be of their
> >> >> making, where minorities are tarred with the actions of extremists.
>
> >> >> Whatever your religion "religionofpeas", it does nto seem to have
> >> >> given you concepts of morality, tolerance, or even common-sense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >Rich said: Involving children in such a film is disgusting,
>
> >> >Said as if not involving children in such an act would it make not
> >> >disgusting. Those children are indoctrinated to believe in, and
> >> >enforce, Sharia. Sharia is the law that all muslims are supposed to
> >> >adopt regardless of whether they like it or not, because Allah knows
> >> >best. It is an inescapable part of their religion, and all you can
> >> >blow on about is that I should not be so judgemental. What a twat!
>
> >> I understand that there's a lot of head-chopping going on in
> >> Mexico - they're all Xtians there.
> >> --
>
> >> Brian Dooley
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Which christian texts and doctrines are these head choppers acting
> >upon?
>
> Ditto for Muslims - numbers please.
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Islam, Muhammad, the paedophile that Muslims consider to be their
prophet, is considered the highest moral example of man, whose
behaviour all good muslims should emulate. Muhammad was not only a
paedophile, but a murderous thug who had no qualms about having his
political opponents murdered. He dealt with the Banu Quayza by having
his followers dig a trench. He then had the captive men lead out and
he, Muhammad, chopped their heads off into the trench - some estimates
put the number of victims at 600. This was a tribe that was not even
attacking him and his followers. There's one foundation for the
beheadings that are so prevalent among the followers of Islam - the
example of the prophet. There are more foundations, but right now I
have to go and join the xmas celebrations. When I come back, perhaps
you will have posted a foundation for these Christian beheadings that
you've said are taking place in Mexico?
liberty
> you will have posted a foundation for these Christian beheadings that
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dooley can’t do that. It would involve more than four words. Possibly
even involve giving an opinion. Nope want happen. Dooley has had his
little snipe comment. He will crawl back into his hole. As always.
Brian Dooley
That happened about 1500 years ago.
"Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens"
That only happened about 800 years ago. The death toll might have
been about 20,000 men, women and children. The Pope was
delighted.
The Srebrenica massacre only happened in 1995. The death toll was
about 8,000, but only men that time.
There are many Muslims living quite close to where I am right now
and I am entirely unafraid.
Fuck off, bigot.
Brian Dooley
In doing so I shall draw to your attention that you have written
'want' for 'won't'. To hit 'a' instead of 'o' is excusable, but
to omit the apostrophe is unforgivable.
Also I think you probably mean 'snide' instead of 'snipe'
I commend to your attention the book "Eats, shoots and leaves",
by Lynne Truss. An admirable treatise on the feeding and care of
the comma and other points of punctuation.
As always.
religionofpeas
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:53:00 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
You miss, or ignore, the main point. Muhammad is the moral example for
all muslims to emulate, for all time. It doesn't matter how long ago
it was. His example is applicable today as it was yesterday. As for
the crusades, they were a response, and a necessary one at that, to
Islamic aggression - an aggression that is clearly evident in the
example of the prophet, and that has clearly existed throughout
Islamic history. But that aside, pointing to the Crusades, or to any
instance of a massacre, doesn't establish a Christian doctrinal
foundation. You claim it exists, so please show it, specifically in
regards to these so-called Christian beheadings that you say are
taking place. Are you going to address that or are you not?
Rich...@hotmail.com
How about some examples that are a bit more recent - say after you
were born?
liberty
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:19:47 -0800 (PST), liberty
>
>
> >> you will have posted a foundation for these Christian beheadings that
> >> you've said are taking place in Mexico?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Dooley can’t do that. It would involve more than four words. Possibly
> >even involve giving an opinion. Nope want happen. Dooley has had his
> >little snipe comment. He will crawl back into his hole. As always.
>
> In doing so I shall draw to your attention that you have written
> 'want' for 'won't'. To hit 'a' instead of 'o' is excusable, but
> to omit the apostrophe is unforgivable.
>
You wet yourself over an “apostrophe”
While failing to back up your claims .
“I understand that there's a lot of head-chopping going on in
Mexico - they're all Xtians there”
religionofpeas
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:53:00 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
>
> >prophet, is considered the highest moral example of man, whose
> >behaviour all good muslims should emulate. Muhammad was not only a
> >paedophile, but a murderous thug who had no qualms about having his
> >political opponents murdered. He dealt with the Banu Quayza by having
> >his followers dig a trench. He then had the captive men lead out and
> >he, Muhammad, chopped their heads off into the trench - some estimates
> >put the number of victims at 600. This was a tribe that was not even
> >attacking him and his followers. There's one foundation for the
> >beheadings that are so prevalent among the followers of Islam - the
> >example of the prophet. There are more foundations, but right now I
> >have to go and join the xmas celebrations. When I come back, perhaps
> >you will have posted a foundation for these Christian beheadings that
> >you've said are taking place in Mexico?
>
> How about some examples that are a bit more recent - say after you
>
> - Show quoted text -
Daniel Pearl. But like Mr Dooley, you miss, or ignore, the point.
There is no better example than the paedophile prophet. The paedophile
prophet is the moral exemplar for all time.
Brian Dooley
>Mexico - they're all Xtians there�
For the religion bit refer eg the CIA Yearbook or any reputable
reference work.
For the beheadings the overseas news of any NZ newspaper in
recent months/years or try a simple Google query, if you can
manage it.
I have to say that your ignorance fully confirms my opinion of
you.
Brian Dooley
Have you ever partaken of the body and blood of Christ, as the
Bible says Jesus expects you to do?
I'm not too keen on cannibalism myself.
And who says what's paedophilia anyway?
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, you make claims then expect me to run off and find the details
rather than actually backing your claim up. You're the one,
apparently, who knows all about the beheadings in Mexico, so why can't
you fill me in? Or is it that you do not really know?
And why do you have a low opinion of people when they are ignorant?
There's nothing wrong with ignorance - when you think about it, we are
all ignorant of one thing or another. There is somethign wrong with
being closed to learning though, and it strikes me that that might be
the case with you.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I am not a Christian. I don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo
superstitious twaddle. But on the other hand, I don't like to
misrepresent things or see things being misrepresented. I don't think
the blood of Christ thing really has anything to do with cannibalism.
That's something else I ask you to present the evidence for. If you
have no evidence for it, then it strikes me as hypocritical of you to
be outraged when you think Islam might being misrepresented while
having no qualms about misrepresenting Christianity. As for your last
question - unbelievable!
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
I googled, as per your suggestion, and I can see why you didn't bother
passing on the information yourself. It seems that the wave of
beheadings in Mexico are gangland killings by drug cartels, out to
strike fear into their opponents.
Brian Dooley
>So, you make claims then expect me to run off and find the details
>rather than actually backing your claim up. You're the one,
>apparently, who knows all about the beheadings in Mexico, so why can't
>you fill me in? Or is it that you do not really know?
>
>And why do you have a low opinion of people when they are ignorant?
>There's nothing wrong with ignorance - when you think about it, we are
>all ignorant of one thing or another. There is somethign wrong with
>being closed to learning though, and it strikes me that that might be
>the case with you.
I think you had better check the attributions of this post - it
is not addressed to you at all.
Brian Dooley
>Well, I am not a Christian. I don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo
>superstitious twaddle.
Why then would you be joining the xmas celebrations?
>But on the other hand, I don't like to
>misrepresent things or see things being misrepresented.
Why then do you criticise the believers in the Q'ran?
>I don't think
>the blood of Christ thing really has anything to do with cannibalism.
But it appears in the holy book of the Xtians in the same way as
the purported sayings and doings of Mohamed appear in the Q'ran
and its associated documents. Why do you believe the one but not
the other?
>That's something else I ask you to present the evidence for. If you
>have no evidence for it, then it strikes me as hypocritical of you to
>be outraged when you think Islam might being misrepresented while
>having no qualms about misrepresenting Christianity. As for your last
>question - unbelievable!
I think that they are both likely to be misrepresented, but I
have no problem with being friendly with believers of any
persuasion.
One class of people I do have problems with is cherry-picking
bigots, and I am persuaded that you are one of them.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text
Because I really like the secular side of Christmas. It's a chance to
enjoy the fruits of my labor. Who wouldn't be joining in that if they
could.
Criticising believers of anything, when it's something deserving of
criticism, is not misrepresentation.
Cannabalism, and exhorations to cannabalism, does not appear in the
Bible or the Koran. I don't believe it for either of them. I asked you
to show me the evidence of it, and you haven't provided it.
Lot's of things in this world are misrepresented, from political
systems to religions to individiduals, by people who are less than
honest. However, that doesn't show that I have misrepresented
anything. What specifically have I misrepresented?
>One class of people I do have problems with is cherry-picking
>bigots, and I am persuaded that you are one of them.
I look forward to you exposing the specifics of my cherry picking.
liberty
That is a bit rich. Coming from just a Labour voter.
liberty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dooley is a bright chappy. unfortuntily his head is so far up his arse
he has trouble
useing his skills.
Brian Dooley
To choose specific instances of behaviour of which you
disapprove, and which actually might not be the whole truth or at
least the stuff of myths, and take them out of context is what I
call cherry-picking. The url below should give you the wine/blood
and bread/flesh quotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper
And this one points to a more recent mass murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
And this one points to the continual bloodshed in Northern
Ireland which resulted in +3500 deaths.
Guess who carried them out, clue: not a single Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
You say that I have cherry picked and presented out of context, but
you haven't shown that I have. I think you should show that I have,
then there'd be validity to your claim.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have no doubt about the quotes existence, that's not in dispute. I
dispute that when held in their proper context they amount to support
for cannibalism. They don't as far as I can tell, and you haven't
shown that they do. Are you saying that they do? What precisely are
you saying?
I don't know what your point is in raising the Oklahoma massacre. It
proves nothing. It doesn't show that I've taken anything out of
context in pointing out the exploits of Muhammad and that the life of
Muhammad is a moral standard within Islam. If you're saying I'm wrong
about that, then explain why or how I am wrong about that. Arbitrarily
pointing to some massacre doesn't cut it.
religionofpeas
*** 8:12 ***
I shall terrorize the infidels.
*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***
Mohammed said, "I have been made victorious with terror."
*** 33:21 ***
Brian Dooley
While you are around there will be a need for my skills.
And it's 'using'.
Brian Dooley
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:43:45 -0800 (PST), liberty
<libe...@live.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 9:34�ｿｽpm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:47:12 -0800 (PST), liberty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 5:43�ｿｽpm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:19:47 -0800 (PST), liberty
>>
>> >> <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> you will have posted a foundation for these Christian beheadings that
>> >> >> you've said are taking place in Mexico?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >Dooley can�ｿｽt do that. It would involve more than four words. �ｿｽPossibly
>> >> >even involve giving an opinion. Nope want happen. Dooley has had his
>> >> >little snipe comment. He will crawl back into his hole. �ｿｽAs always.
>>
>> >> In doing so I shall draw to your attention that you have written
>> >> 'want' for 'won't'. To hit 'a' instead of 'o' is excusable, but
>> >> to omit the apostrophe is unforgivable.
>>
>> >You wet yourself over an �ｿｽapostrophe�ｿｽ
>>
>> >While failing to back up your claims .
>>
>> > �ｿｽI understand that there's a lot of head-chopping going on in
>> >Mexico - they're all Xtians there�ｿｽ
>>
>> For the religion bit refer eg the CIA Yearbook or any reputable
>> reference work.
>>
>> For the beheadings the overseas news of any NZ newspaper in
>> recent months/years or try a simple Google query, if you can
>> manage it.
>>
>> I have to say that your ignorance fully confirms my opinion of
>> you.
>>
>
> That is a bit rich. Coming from just a Labour voter.
>
The difference is that I know things and you don't, which is a
defining characteristic of ignorance.
WorkHard
>> That is a bit rich. Coming from just a Labour voter.
>>
> The difference is that I know things and you don't, which is a
> defining characteristic of ignorance.
LOL FACT: You are as ignorant as anyone.
Brian Dooley
I'm not interested in debating with a bigot. In this case I'm
only interested in showing others that you can't get away wih it.
Let them make what they will of it.
Brian Dooley
As the Papal Legate said:
"Kill them all, God will know his own."
(That's in case you can't understand it in French)
liberty
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:43:45 -0800 (PST), liberty
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 26, 9:34 pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:47:12 -0800 (PST), liberty
>
> >> <libert...@live.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:19:47 -0800 (PST), liberty
>
> >> >> <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> you will have posted a foundation for these Christian beheadings that
> >> >> >> you've said are taking place in Mexico?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >even involve giving an opinion. Nope want happen. Dooley has had his
>
> >> >> In doing so I shall draw to your attention that you have written
> >> >> 'want' for 'won't'. To hit 'a' instead of 'o' is excusable, but
> >> >> to omit the apostrophe is unforgivable.
>
>
> >> >While failing to back up your claims .
>
> >> >Mexico - they're all Xtians there
>
> >> reference work.
>
> >> For the beheadings the overseas news of any NZ newspaper in
> >> recent months/years or try a simple Google query, if you can
> >> manage it.
>
> >> I have to say that your ignorance fully confirms my opinion of
> >> you.
>
> > That is a bit rich. Coming from just a Labour voter.
>
> The difference is that I know things
Really all you seem to do bitch and make smart arse comments.
Any FW can do that.
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Dec 29, 11:41�am, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
I commend you for having tried, but you miss on that 'smart' word,
'liberty'.
Brian Dooley
wrote:
Come now - don't be modest.
Nnobody could be as ignorant as you are.
religionofpeas
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:18:33 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>
> >Another basis for terror from within Islam, from the Hadith:
>
> >*** 8:12 ***
>
> >I shall terrorize the infidels.
>
> >*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***
>
> >Mohammed said, "I have been made victorious with terror."
>
> >*** 33:21 ***
>
> As the Papal Legate said:
>
> "Kill them all, God will know his own."
>
> (That's in case you can't understand it in French)
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
Again, you make a quote, but provide no context. How can you equate
that to the example of the prophet, who is an example of the ideal man
to be emulated by all muslims for all time? Does context matter to
you, or are you dishonest?
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
Presenting aspects of Islam is bigotry? Since when? What do you mean
when you say that I can't get away with it? I am getting away with it,
and I'll continue to get away with it. Islam is nothing but a set of
ideas, and those ideas are easily available for all to see. I'm doing
nothing other than presenting a few in this forum. If you think any of
them are wrong, then you can present the evidence that they are wrong.
You haven't done so yet. You've merely acted like a little kid who
points to others in order to deflect from his own actions, only rather
than you doing it to cover for yourself, you're doing it on behalf of
others.
liberty
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:31:03 -0800 (PST), liberty <libert...@live.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another FW
liberty
> On , , Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:31:03 -0800 (PST), Re: Join a Union - to thwart Nasty
> Nats Employment law, liberty <libert...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >Really all you seem to do bitch and make smart arse comments.
>
> >Any FW can do that.
>
> again, again?
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
Good god the place the place is infested with FWs.
must be the time of year.
WorkHard
The point is that you are as ignorant as anyone. You knowing
things that others don't is not a defining characteristic of
ignorance, and you claiming so just exposes yours. And your lies,
too.
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:19 +1300, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org>
wrote:
>Brian Dooley wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:58:20 +1300, "WorkHard"
>> <w...@workhard.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Dooley wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is a bit rich. Coming from just a Labour voter.
>>>>>
>>>> The difference is that I know things and you don't, which is
>>>> a
>>>> defining characteristic of ignorance.
>>>
>>> LOL FACT: You are as ignorant as anyone.
>>>
>> Come now - don't be modest.
>>
>> Nnobody could be as ignorant as you are.
>
>The point is that you are as ignorant as anyone. You knowing
>things that others don't is not a defining characteristic of
>ignorance,
Yes it is.
>and you claiming so just exposes yours.
No it doesn't
>And your lies, too.
>
Lies, moi?
Surely you jest.
Brian Dooley
>On Dec 29, 2:31�pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:18:33 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>>
>> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Another basis for terror from within Islam, from the Hadith:
>>
>> >*** 8:12 ***
>>
>> >I shall terrorize the infidels.
>>
>> >*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***
>>
>> >Mohammed said, "I have been made victorious with terror."
>>
>> >*** 33:21 ***
>>
>> As the Papal Legate said:
>>
>> "Kill them all, God will know his own."
>>
>> (That's in case you can't understand it in French)
>Again, you make a quote, but provide no context.
I shouldn't need to as I have already done so. You should pay
more attention. However (once more with feeling) the quote is the
reply given to an honest captain who asked how he could tell the
difference between the heretics and the Catholics at the
conclusion of the siege of Beziers. The Legate was the agent of
the Pope, who millions of people believe to be God's Vicar on
Earth and to have a direct line to God.
>How can you equate
>that to the example of the prophet, who is an example of the ideal man
>to be emulated by all muslims for all time?
The *reported* example of the Prophet, as are all the hadiths ie
the hadiths are analogous to the various gospels of the New
Testament when they purport to quote Christ.
>Does context matter to you,
Always.
>or are you dishonest?
A bit of thought just might persuade you that there is more than
one alternative.
Brian Dooley
>Presenting aspects of Islam is bigotry? Since when?
In this newsgroup since you started referring to paedophilia,
which is a deliberate attempt to denigrate a seventh century Arab
by expecting him to conform to your 21st Century West European
mores.
>What do you mean
>when you say that I can't get away with it? I am getting away with it,
>and I'll continue to get away with it.
Not while there is somebody to take you on.
>Islam is nothing but a set of
>ideas, and those ideas are easily available for all to see.
As is, and are, the ideas of every religion.
>I'm doing
>nothing other than presenting a few in this forum. If you think any of
>them are wrong,
Not so much wrong as well-known.
>then you can present the evidence that they are wrong.
And boring.
>You haven't done so yet. You've merely acted like a little kid who
>points to others in order to deflect from his own actions, only rather
>than you doing it to cover for yourself, you're doing it on behalf of
>others.
I am devastated.
WorkHard
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:19 +1300, "WorkHard"
> <w...@workhard.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:58:20 +1300, "WorkHard"
>>> <w...@workhard.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian Dooley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That is a bit rich. Coming from just a Labour voter.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that I know things and you don't, which
>>>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>> defining characteristic of ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> LOL FACT: You are as ignorant as anyone.
>>>>
>>> Come now - don't be modest.
>>>
>>> Nnobody could be as ignorant as you are.
>>
>> The point is that you are as ignorant as anyone. You knowing
>> things that others don't is not a defining characteristic of
>> ignorance,
>
> Yes it is.
LOL In your little egocentric 'fantasy' world.
>> and you claiming so just exposes yours.
>
> No it doesn't
Sure it does. Everyone here knows things you don't - which proves
*your* ignorance.
>> And your lies, too.
>>
> Lies, moi?
yes.
Brian Dooley
WorkHard
Yep. You couldn't give a toss. Just keep lying.
Brian Dooley
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:02:12 +1300, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org>
wrote:
About you?
You are correct for once - I couldn'give a toss.
WorkHard
You couldn't give a toss about your lies here on this group.
There's plenty of those.
religionofpeas
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You haven't already done so. You've said it's the equivalent but you
haven't shown that it's the equivalent. For that you need to show how
it is supported by Christian doctrine, which you have not done. So is
it you who need's to pay more attention, to detail. So, what Christian
doctrine was the man who made the comment acting on? I suggest that he
was motivated by his own personal desires.
Whether the Hadith and the Gospels are similar or not is not the
point. What each prophet taught is the point. Muhammad was a militant
thug, jesus was not. Jesus preached "turn the other cheek". Muhammad
did not. Muhammad said "kill those who leave their religion" - hence
the sharia penalty for apostacy - Jesus did not. The differences are
many and at polar ends.
Context clearly does not matter to you. This is evident in your
constant attempts to portray a moral equivalence where there is no
moral equivalence.
Brian Dooley
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:31:15 +1300, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org>
wrote:
Nobody else seems to think so - perhaps a couple of nutcases like
you.
WorkHard
You can't say. You haven't asked them. But that is irrelevant
anyway as you know.
- perhaps a couple of nutcases like
> you.
People who lie, as you do, are the nutcases.
Brian Dooley
>You haven't already done so. You've said it's the equivalent but you
>haven't shown that it's the equivalent. For that you need to show how
>it is supported by Christian doctrine, which you have not done.
What/whose doctrine? There must be a hundred of them.
>So is
>it you who need's to pay more attention, to detail. So, what Christian
>doctrine was the man who made the comment acting on? I suggest that he
>was motivated by his own personal desires.
He was the personal representative of the Pope.
And what desires are you motivated by?
>
>Whether the Hadith and the Gospels are similar or not is not the
>point. What each prophet taught is the point. Muhammad was a militant
>thug, jesus was not. Jesus preached "turn the other cheek".
Jesus lived under Roman rule, which came down heavily on
disturbers of the peace.
> Muhammad
>did not. Muhammad said "kill those who leave their religion" - hence
>the sharia penalty for apostacy - Jesus did not. The differences are
>many and at polar ends.
>
Muhamed would never have got away with it had Rome penetrated as
far as Medina/Mecca.
>Context clearly does not matter to you.
You're not too hot on it yourself.
>This is evident in your
>constant attempts to portray a moral equivalence where there is no
>moral equivalence.
You are talking through the back of your head - where did you get
this 'moral equivalence' crap from?
Brian Dooley
religionofpeas
> disturbers of the peace.
You're saying that if it wasn't for the Romans Jesus would have been a
murderous thug? What are you trying to defend?
>
> > Muhammad
> >did not. Muhammad said "kill those who leave their religion" - hence
> >the sharia penalty for apostacy - Jesus did not. The differences are
> >many and at polar ends.
>
> Muhamed would never have got away with it had Rome penetrated as
> far as Medina/Mecca.
Again, what are you trying to defend?
>
> >This is evident in your
> >constant attempts to portray a moral equivalence where there is no
> >moral equivalence.
>
> You are talking through the back of your head - where did you get
> this 'moral equivalence' crap from?
Your constant attempts to equate Christianity and Islam as equals in a
bid to sidetrack from, or mitigate, the activities of Jihadists.
Brian Dooley
So in fact you have no argument at all.
religionofpeas
>
> - Show quoted text -
Calling your position for what it is isnt' an argument. It's calling
it for what it is.
Brian Dooley
>On Jan 2, 10:33�pm, Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:46:59 -0800 (PST), religionofpeas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Jesus lived under Roman rule, which came down heavily on
>> >> disturbers of the peace.
>>
>> >You're saying that if it wasn't for the Romans Jesus would have been a
>> >murderous thug? What are you trying to defend?
>>
>> >> > Muhammad
>> >> >did not. Muhammad said "kill those who leave their religion" - hence
>> >> >the sharia penalty for apostacy - Jesus did not. The differences are
>> >> >many and at polar ends.
>>
>> >> Muhamed would never have got away with it had Rome penetrated as
>> >> far as Medina/Mecca.
>>
>> >Again, what are you trying to defend?
>>
>> >> >This is evident in your
>> >> >constant attempts to portray a moral equivalence where there is no
>> >> >moral equivalence.
>>
>> >> You are talking through the back of your head - where did you get
>> >> this 'moral equivalence' crap from?
>>
>> >Your constant attempts to equate Christianity and Islam as equals in a
>> >bid to sidetrack from, or mitigate, the activities of Jihadists.
>>
I no more mitigate the activities of the 'jihadists' than I do
those of the Teutonic Knights. There isn't too much difference
except that the krauts have been dead a while.
>> So in fact you have no argument at all.
>
>Calling your position for what it is isnt' an argument. It's calling
>it for what it is.
--