"Faith Alone in Christ Alone"
C. Spivey
Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
1. Corinthians 15:1 – 4
Dispensational Bible Studies
http://www.angelfire.com/al/graceandpeace
The Home Page of Connie Spivey,
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/thehomepageofconnies
“GRACE and PEACE” Posting
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb242
60 Bible Lessons By – Pastor J. C. O’Hair
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb264484
“GRACE CHRISTIAN LADIES” Posting
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mbmb98433
CONNIES CHRISTIAN POEMS
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb277045
patricK fitzgeralD
wrote:
>“Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
>Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
>Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
>1. Corinthians 15:1 – 4
>
Please post this religious crap elsewhere,.
Another illustration of the need to change from Christchurch to
Canterbury
patricK
Colin Francis
>“Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
>Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
>Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
>1. Corinthians 15:1 – 4
>
> Dispensational Bible Studies
>http://www.angelfire.com/al/graceandpeace
>
>The Home Page of Connie Spivey,
>http://www.angelfire.com/ok/thehomepageofconnies
>
>“GRACE and PEACE” Posting
> http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb242
>
>60 Bible Lessons By – Pastor J. C. O’Hair
>http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb264484
>
>“GRACE CHRISTIAN LADIES” Posting
>http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mbmb98433
>
>
>CONNIES CHRISTIAN POEMS
>http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb277045
>
>
>
>
and Col's Christian Treatments
http://www.fuckoff.and/don't.post.here
** Col **
Is a dance a Naval encounter without loss of
seamen . ?
Corky
wrote:
And Corky's favorite Christian songs by Marilyn Manson
http://www.willthis.christian.bullshit/neverend.com
>
>Is a dance a Naval encounter without loss of
>seamen . ?
------------------------------------
Blair Corkran
Christchurch
New Zealand
------------------------------------
Snoopy
fitzgeralD) wrote:
>
>>“Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
>>Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
>>Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
>>1. Corinthians 15:1 – 4
>>
>
>
>Another illustration of the need to change from Christchurch to
>Canterbury
>
(puts on horns and beard) };-)>, I have fired the speargun SNOOPY
-----------------------------------------------------
Message posted by SNOOPY using 'Forte'
Free Agent V1.11/32- http://www.forteinc.com
------------------------------------------------
Corky
(Snoopy) wrote:
>No, another example of spam. And since Connie has now spammed twice,
>(puts on horns and beard) };-)>, I have fired the speargun SNOOPY
Snoopy I find it very hard how your rationalise that we need not
change the title of our NG and persist with putting up with what will
continue to follow this group as long the name as Christ and Church
remain in place.
Talk about head in the sand. Sure it's spam granted. But it will
persist in coming until the name of the group is changed.
DuncanMcC
acsp...@swbell.net says...
> “Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
> Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
> Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
<more fucking religious garbo' cut>
Vote YES - for the yet to be revised RFD that calls for the existing
name:
nz.reg.christchurch.general
to:
nz.reg.chch.general
--
Regards Duncan McC
(remove nosmeggingspam to reply e-mail)
http://www.adrock.com
DuncanMcC
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:52:39 -0600 in nz.reg.christchurch.general C.
> Spivey wrote: in <bu7r2.10950$ZF5....@typhoon01.swbell.net>:
>
> >“Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
> >Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
> >Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
> >
>
> change the name of the group to canterbury.
Jesus... dont' bugger me up *now* David - I'm under the impression that
most folk want to retain the 'christchurch' feel, by simply renaming it
to the abreviation (that we're all familiar with) - 'chch'.
Snoopy
>>
>>No, another example of spam. And since Connie has now spammed twice,
>>(puts on horns and beard) };-)>, I have fired the speargun SNOOPY
>
>Snoopy I find it very hard how your rationalise that we need not
>change the title of our NG and persist with putting up with what will
>continue to follow this group as long the name as Christ and Church
>remain in place.
>
concerned e-mailing them the evidence. Connie has now got the
speargun treatment. She won't be back.
>
>Talk about head in the sand. Sure it's spam granted. But it will
>
I didn't say said a name change would not reduce Christian spam. But
your implied line that simply changing the group name will stop all
spam or stop christian messages in this group is not true. I want to
see what percentage of the messages in this group is actually
Christian spam, so that I can see whether a name change is justified.
No one has produced these figures yet. SNOOPY
Colin Francis
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:48:31 GMT, be...@caverock.net.nz (Corky) wrote:
>>>
>>>No, another example of spam. And since Connie has now spammed twice,
>>>(puts on horns and beard) };-)>, I have fired the speargun SNOOPY
>>
>>Snoopy I find it very hard how your rationalise that we need not
>>change the title of our NG and persist with putting up with what will
>>continue to follow this group as long the name as Christ and Church
>>remain in place.
>>
>I don't put up with it. Any dual offenders, I contact the ISP
>concerned e-mailing them the evidence. Connie has now got the
>speargun treatment. She won't be back.
>>
>>Talk about head in the sand. Sure it's spam granted. But it will
>>persist in coming until the name of the group is changed.
>>
>I didn't say said a name change would not reduce Christian spam. But
>your implied line that simply changing the group name will stop all
>spam or stop christian messages in this group is not true. I want to
>see what percentage of the messages in this group is actually
>Christian spam, so that I can see whether a name change is justified.
>No one has produced these figures yet. SNOOPY
geeez .. there's always gotta be one like you in every group ..
Can you tell me exactly what percentage of spam is required for you to
decide that a name change is justified ..
10, 20, ?? What . ?
If we stopped the Christian spam only i think most would be happy ..
Except you who would still in the research stage ..
** Col **
Phil Anderson
>Snoopy I find it very hard how your rationalise that we need not
>change the title of our NG and persist with putting up with what will
>continue to follow this group as long the name as Christ and Church
>remain in place.
Well of course we don't _need_ to change the group name -- the level
of Xian spam isn't exactly overwhelming other conversations. However,
incurring a one-off trivial cost (a little disruption during the name
changeover) to avoid the ongoing minor irritation of Xian spam seems
well worthwhile.
I can't recall whether Snoopy has ever actually explained _why_ he so
strongly opposes a name change. I can understand that he might not
think it's _necessary_ to change the name, but that hardly justifies
such vehement opposition to a change.
--
----------------------------------------------
Phil Anderson *** ha...@sloth.southern.co.nz
----------------------------------------------
"No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Geoff McCaughan
> In article <36b27c80....@news.xtra.co.nz>, da...@farrar.com says...
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:52:39 -0600 in nz.reg.christchurch.general C.
> > Spivey wrote: in <bu7r2.10950$ZF5....@typhoon01.swbell.net>:
> >
> > >“Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
> > >Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
> > >Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
> > >1. Corinthians 15:1 – 4
> > >
> >
> > Well I've just gone from a maybe to a definite yes for a vote to
> > change the name of the group to canterbury.
>
> Jesus... dont' bugger me up *now* David - I'm under the impression that
> most folk want to retain the 'christchurch' feel, by simply renaming it
> to the abreviation (that we're all familiar with) - 'chch'.
Where do you get that idea. Where's the discussion? From what I've seen
you've simply come up with the idea and decided for yourself.
I'll vote 'yes' yo canterbury, but 'no' for chch.
Hugh Grierson
>I want to
>see what percentage of the messages in this group is actually
>Christian spam, so that I can see whether a name change is justified.
>No one has produced these figures yet.
You are the one looking for the justification, so what are you waiting
for? Do the figures yourself. Don't expect us to hold your hand, we've
already justified it to ourselves.
-H
Snoopy
wrote:
>>
>>I want to see what percentage of the messages in this group is
>> actually Christian spam, so that I can see whether a name
>>change is justified.
>
>geeez .. there's always gotta be one like you in every group ..
>Can you tell me exactly what percentage of spam is required for you to
>decide that a name change is justified ..
>10, 20, ?? What . ?
>If we stopped the Christian spam only i think most would be happy ..
>Except you who would still in the research stage ..
>
such a survey- if no-one else can be bothered. I reckon that for a
months worth of postings it might take a couple of hours at most. But
'I' am not pushing for I change so 'I' don't have to prove anything.
Surely it it those clamouring for change who have the obligation to
gather the evidence to back up what they are claiming? SNOOPY
Snoopy
Anderson) wrote:
>
>Well of course we don't _need_ to change the group name -- the level
>of Xian spam isn't exactly overwhelming other conversations. However,
>incurring a one-off trivial cost (a little disruption during the name
>changeover) to avoid the ongoing minor irritation of Xian spam seems
>well worthwhile.
>
comparatively unimportant. Why are you wasting ANY of your time on
such a minor irritation? Or is it the fact that the irritation is
'ongoing' and therefore of undefined size in the future that is more
significant to you?
>
>I can't recall whether Snoopy has ever actually explained _why_ he so
>strongly opposes a name change. I can understand that he might not
>think it's _necessary_ to change the name, but that hardly justifies
>such vehement opposition to a change.
>
to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'
If you really want to know why, then do a search on dejanews for the
heading
DON'T rename 'nz.reg.christchurch.general'
However, until the actual form of the CFV is announced, I won't repeat
them here. If the referendum is different, the case against will also
be different. SNOOPY
Snoopy
Grierson) wrote:
>>
>>I want to
>>see what percentage of the messages in this group is actually
>>Christian spam, so that I can see whether a name change is justified.
>>No one has produced these figures yet.
>
>for? Do the figures yourself. Don't expect us to hold your hand,
>
name christchurch in it's group name. Hardly a radical proposition I
would have thought.
>we've already justified it to ourselves.
>
for others. Hopefully others will come to the their own conclusion
and that may or may not be the same as yours.
So here is your chance to convert others to your cause. How have you
justified a group name change to yourself? SNOOPY
Hugh Grierson
>So here is your chance to convert others to your cause. How have you
>justified a group name change to yourself? SNOOPY
The spam irritates me. That's how I justify it to myself, but I'm not on
the campaign trail to convince anyone else.
-H
DuncanMcC
says...
Good on ya - that's the new RFD in a nutshell.
If you subscribe to nz.net.admin - you'll see some discussion's been
going on there.
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
wrote:
>> Jesus... dont' bugger me up *now* David - I'm under the impression that
>> most folk want to retain the 'christchurch' feel, by simply renaming it
>> to the abreviation (that we're all familiar with) - 'chch'.
>
>Where do you get that idea. Where's the discussion? From what I've seen
>you've simply come up with the idea and decided for yourself.
>
>I'll vote 'yes' yo canterbury, but 'no' for chch.
Canterbury is far more inclusive so I will be definitely be voting yes
for nz.reg.canterbury.general
patricK
Gordon Taylor
>
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:39:38 GMT, cfra...@ihug.co.nz (Colin Francis)
>wrote:
>>geeez .. there's always gotta be one like you in every group ..
So get used to working with this situation.
>>Can you tell me exactly what percentage of spam is required for you to
>>decide that a name change is justified ..
>>10, 20, ?? What . ?
>>If we stopped the Christian spam only i think most would be happy ..
Why this obsession with "christian" spam?
>>Except you who would still in the research stage ..
>>
>Well my ISP retains messages 'for a while' so I fully intend doing
>such a survey- if no-one else can be bothered. I reckon that for a
>months worth of postings it might take a couple of hours at most. But
>'I' am not pushing for I change so 'I' don't have to prove anything.
>
True you do not. However it will not do either sides cause any harm if
they can produce the number of spam messages which supports their
cause.
>Surely it it those clamouring for change who have the obligation to
>gather the evidence to back up what they are claiming? SNOOPY
And vica versa.;-)
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Phil Anderson
>>incurring a one-off trivial cost (a little disruption during the name
>>changeover) to avoid the ongoing minor irritation of Xian spam seems
>>well worthwhile.
>>
>An 'ongoing minor irritation'? My dictionary defines 'minor' as
>comparatively unimportant. Why are you wasting ANY of your time on
>such a minor irritation?
I suggest you go back to your dictionary and look up "irritation" and
"avoid".
>I along with 15 others are on record as opposing the group name change
>to 'nz.reg.canterbury.general'
And your point is...?
>If you really want to know why, then do a search on dejanews for the
>heading
I honestly don't recall what you said last time around, but this time
you don't seem to have made any any attempt to give a rational
explanation of your position. In my experience this indicates that you
don't _have_ a rational explanation and it wouldn't be worth wasting
my time to go on line and search.
Snoopy
Anderson) wrote:
>
>I honestly don't recall what you said last time around, but this time
>you don't seem to have made any any attempt to give a rational
>explanation of your position. In my experience this indicates that you
>don't _have_ a rational explanation and it wouldn't be worth wasting
>my time to go on line and search.
>
do any homework to find out what it is. Well that is your right.
Have you have been equally studious in your careful consideration as
to why you think the group name should be changed? SNOOPY
Phil Anderson
>Ok, so you are not interested enough in the other side of the story to
>do any homework to find out what it is. Well that is your right.
You miss the point - your actions so far give me no reason to think
that there _is_ another side to the story.
Geoff McCaughan
> >
> > I'll vote 'yes' yo canterbury, but 'no' for chch.
> >
>
>
> If you subscribe to nz.net.admin - you'll see some discussion's been
> going on there.
Been there. I don't see any discussion on chch - just you suggesting it.
Tigger
> In article <36ae5959...@news.caverock.net.nz> tennyson@NO_SPAM.caverock.net.nz writes:
> >
> >>If we stopped the Christian spam only i think most would be happy ..
> Why this obsession with "christian" spam?
Erm, aren't you following the thread? Because the group is being spammed
with Christian spam at a rate higher than any other single group in the
nz.* heirarchy, and probably higher than any general spamming of any nz*
group. We've nothing against them for being Christian. We just feel that
the name of our group invites them in.
--
Tigger =^..^=
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/nztigger/humour.html
http://www.freethought.org.nz/usenet/nz.soc.religion/regulars
*************************************************************
Employ me! Visit http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/nztigger/cv.html
*************************************************************
Tigger
>
> The reason I prefer canterbury is two fold.
>
> a) Most other groups are named after the region not the major city
Aren't they all named after the major city, but in some cases that is
also the name of the region?
Frankly, I don't care. Call it nz.reg.otautahi.general for all I care,
as long as it doesn't contain 'christ' 'church' or other spam-inviting
things.
Tigger
>
> Where do you get that idea. Where's the discussion? From what I've seen
> you've simply come up with the idea and decided for yourself.
I've said it. I prefer chch. For mainly one reason. It's shorter.
> I'll vote 'yes' yo canterbury, but 'no' for chch.
Why? If we can get a feel for what people really prefer and why, the
chances of it passing will be better come voting time.
Gordon Taylor
>
>Gordon Taylor wrote:
>> In article <36ae5959...@news.caverock.net.nz>> tennyson@NO_SPAM.caverock.net.nz writes:
>> >
>> >>If we stopped the Christian spam only i think most would be happy ..
>> Why this obsession with "christian" spam?
>
>Erm, aren't you following the thread? Because the group is being spammed
>with Christian spam at a rate higher than any other single group in the
>nz.* heirarchy, and probably higher than any general spamming of any nz*
>group. We've nothing against them for being Christian. We just feel that
>the name of our group invites them in.
>
that there is some extra anti being levelled at Christian spam.
Any yes I am following this thread, not sure if it will be to the
bitter end.
--
Gordon Taylor blu...@penguin.southern.co.nz
Phil Anderson
>My question rephased, Is not all spam equally bad? It appears to me
>that there is some extra anti being levelled at Christian spam.
I don't think that that's because its Xian per se - it's just that
we're getting a clearly defined bunch of spam that no one else in the
nz hierarchy has to put up with much. Naturally this annoys people,
but they'd be just as annoyed if this were nz.reg.wellington.chat
and kept getting gumboot spam.
Warwick Robinson
Tigger <d...@mr2.org.xnzx> wrote in article <36AFBE...@mr2.org.xnzx>...
> I've said it. I prefer chch. For mainly one reason. It's shorter.
> > I'll vote 'yes' yo canterbury, but 'no' for chch.
>
> Why? If we can get a feel for what people really prefer and why, the
> chances of it passing will be better come voting time.
Canterbury is very definitely the only way to go. As well as dealing with
the religious spam problem it also clearly identifies and reflects the
intended regional nature of this group. As a resident of Canterbury but not
of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
Warwick Robinson
Snoopy
Nope, could be 'nz.reg.chch.general' or 'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or
even 'nz.reg.lyttelton.general' (How About that Corky, if you still
out there lurking somewhere), reflecting the name for 'Canterbury
Settlement' which was favoured by the colonists society in London
around 1850.
>
>As well as dealing with the religious spam problem
>
'canterbury'?
>
>it also clearly identifies and reflects the
>intended regional nature of this group.
>
will notice the name of this group is NOT
'nz.city.christchurch.general'
>As a resident of Canterbury but not
>of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
>
be a teensy weensy bit biased then, given your declared location?
>
>Warwick Robinson
>
Of course don't take that as a criticisim Warwick. I think given your
position your view is justified. I wish more Canterbury (but not in
Christchurch) people would express their views on this subject. SNOOPY
Colin Francis
>On 28 Jan 1999 07:06:35 GMT, "Warwick Robinson"
><w.rob...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>Canterbury is very definitely the only way to go.
>>
>Does it? Are you aware of the religious connotations of the word
>'canterbury'?
lok up canterbury in a search engine before ya make statemenys like
that
>>it also clearly identifies and reflects the
>>intended regional nature of this group.
>>
>What about the 'region around Christchurch' as a description. You
>will notice the name of this group is NOT
>'nz.city.christchurch.general'
Pedantic really
>>As a resident of Canterbury but not
>>of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
>>
>You don't think your preference for 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' might
>be a teensy weensy bit biased then, given your declared location?
what the fuck does that mean .anybody is biased towards the way they
are gonna vote ..
>Of course don't take that as a criticisim Warwick. I think given your
>position your view is justified. I wish more Canterbury (but not in
>Christchurch) people would express their views on this subject.
yeah yeah ..
Col.
If a person with multiple personalities threatens
suicide, is that considered a hostage situation?
Warwick Robinson
Snoopy <tenn...@NOSPAM.caverock.net.nz> wrote in article
<36b045c9...@news.caverock.net.nz>...
> On 28 Jan 1999 07:06:35 GMT, "Warwick Robinson"
> <w.rob...@netaccess.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >Canterbury is very definitely the only way to go.
> >
> ... In your view
> Nope, could be 'nz.reg.chch.general' or 'nz.reg.chrstchrch.general' or
> even 'nz.reg.lyttelton.general' (How About that Corky, if you still
> out there lurking somewhere), reflecting the name for 'Canterbury
> Settlement' which was favoured by the colonists society in London
> around 1850.
> >
> >As well as dealing with the religious spam problem
> >
> Does it? Are you aware of the religious connotations of the word
> 'canterbury'?
> >
> >it also clearly identifies and reflects the
> >intended regional nature of this group.
> >
> What about the 'region around Christchurch' as a description. You
> will notice the name of this group is NOT
> 'nz.city.christchurch.general'
> >
> >As a resident of Canterbury but not
> >of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
> >
> You don't think your preference for 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' might
> be a teensy weensy bit biased then, given your declared location?
> >
> >Warwick Robinson
> >
> Of course don't take that as a criticisim Warwick. I think given your
> position your view is justified. I wish more Canterbury (but not in
> Christchurch) people would express their views on this subject. SNOOPY
Snoopy I do not intend to indulge your dogmatism by repeating the well
reasoned and sensible arguments others have already made in support of a
name change for this ng. Suffice to say it is quite apparent from your
numerous posts on this matter that you intend to continue to defend your
position in the face of logic and commonsense. That is of course your
prerogative. May I suggest,however, that you will need to elevate the
debate to a level considerably higher than this latest contribution in
order to influence my thinking and I suspect the thinking of many others.
Warwick Robinson
>
Snoopy
wrote:
>>>
>>>Canterbury is very definitely the only way to go.
>>>
>>'canterbury'?
>
>that
>
Ok, In ANZWERS I got 5392 references to Canterbury Cathedral, here is
the web address that leads to some nice shots.
http://www.images.wit.edu/Academics/ARC/Courses/ARCH441/
I trust you are now satisfied?
>>>it also clearly identifies and reflects the
>>>intended regional nature of this group.
>>>
>>What about the 'region around Christchurch' as a description. You
>>will notice the name of this group is NOT
>>'nz.city.christchurch.general'
>
>Pedantic really
>
No, what are you suggesting? That the 'region of Christchurch' means
Christchurch city only?
>
>>>As a resident of Canterbury but not
>>>of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
>>>
>>You don't think your preference for 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' might
>>be a teensy weensy bit biased then, given your declared location?
>
>what the fuck does that mean .anybody is biased towards the way they
>are gonna vote ..
>
Warwick opened his statement by stating that
'Canterbury is the only way to go'.
I am not arguing that he feels that way, but as a stated fact, this is
not true. There are other options. I was suggesting to him, and
others reading this thread, that his choice might be influenced by his
location. SNOOPY
Tigger
>
> My question rephased, Is not all spam equally bad? It appears to me
> that there is some extra anti being levelled at Christian spam.
Okay. Yes, all spam is just as bad. However, the levels of other spam
are sufficiently low that it's just 'normal' spam. The Christian spam,
and Christian spam only, is excessive. ISPO
Tigger
>
> Canterbury is very definitely the only way to go. As well as dealing with
> the religious spam problem it also clearly identifies and reflects the
> intended regional nature of this group. As a resident of Canterbury but not
> of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
I've had a bit of a turnaround myself on that. I think it was something
Luke wrote that convinced me - "after all, these group names do all
contain .reg. for regional". It does seem bizarre to say it's regional
but not to name it after the region.
Colin Francis
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:03:08 GMT, cfra...@ihug.co.nz (Colin Francis)
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Canterbury is very definitely the only way to go.
>>>>
>>>Does it? Are you aware of the religious connotations of the word
>>>'canterbury'?
>>
>>look up canterbury in a search engine before ya make statements like
>>that
>>
>Ok, In ANZWERS I got 5392 references to Canterbury Cathedral, here is
>the web address that leads to some nice shots.
>http://www.images.wit.edu/Academics/ARC/Courses/ARCH441/
>
>I trust you are now satisfied?
Cant see what it proves .. Its specific to one Cathedral .. so you
think these christians associated with Canterbury Cathedral are gonna
spam us .. geeez
>>>>it also clearly identifies and reflects the
>>>>intended regional nature of this group.
>>>>
>>>What about the 'region around Christchurch' as a description. You
>>>will notice the name of this group is NOT
>>>'nz.city.christchurch.general'
>>
>>Pedantic really
>>
>No, what are you suggesting? That the 'region of Christchurch' means
>Christchurch city only?
>>
>>>>As a resident of Canterbury but not
>>>>of Christchurch my vote will be going to Canterbury.
>>>>
>>>You don't think your preference for 'nz.reg.canterbury.general' might
>>>be a teensy weensy bit biased then, given your declared location?
>>
>>what the fuck does that mean .anybody is biased towards the way they
>>are gonna vote ..
>>
>Warwick opened his statement by stating that
>'Canterbury is the only way to go'.
and you told he may be teensey weensey ( sounds like you watch the
telebubbies) biased .. :]
>I am not arguing that he feels that way, but as a stated fact, this is
>not true. There are other options. I was suggesting to him, and
>others reading this thread, that his choice might be influenced by his
>location.
So what . It's his choice ..
I feel your's is influenced by faulty reasoning .. but it's your
choice ..
Snoopy
wrote:
>>
>>Ok, In ANZWERS I got 5392 references to Canterbury Cathedral, here is
>>the web address that leads to some nice shots.
>>http://www.images.wit.edu/Academics/ARC/Courses/ARCH441/
>>
>>I trust you are now satisfied?
>
>Cant see what it proves .. Its specific to one Cathedral .. so you
>think these christians associated with Canterbury Cathedral are gonna
>spam us .. geeez
>
notional headquarters of the Anglican Church. So sure it is 'one
Cathedral' but that is like saying tha the Vatican is just 'one
cathedral' or that the Pope is just 'one priest'.
>>Warwick opened his statement by stating that
>>'Canterbury is the only way to go'.
>>not true. There are other options. I was suggesting to him, and
>>others reading this thread, that his choice might be influenced by his
>>location.
>
>So what . It's his choice ..
>
suggesting that every other voter makes their own informed choice
-which means they critically check out the comments of others before
accepting them as 'fact'. That is the way to vote 'unbiasdly'.
Colin Francis
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:35:39 GMT, cfra...@ihug.co.nz (Colin Francis)
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Ok, In ANZWERS I got 5392 references to Canterbury Cathedral, here is
>>>the web address that leads to some nice shots.
>>>http://www.images.wit.edu/Academics/ARC/Courses/ARCH441/
>>>
>>>I trust you are now satisfied?
>>
>>Cant see what it proves .. Its specific to one Cathedral .. so you
>>think these christians associated with Canterbury Cathedral are gonna
>>spam us .. geeez
>>
>It may be 'one cathedral', to you but Canterbury Cathedral is the
>notional headquarters of the Anglican Church. So sure it is 'one
>Cathedral' but that is like saying tha the Vatican is just 'one
>cathedral' or that the Pope is just 'one priest'.
For fucks sake Snoopy ..You are just wearng me down with your pathetic
arguments .. But ill never agree with your logic as it is so flawed
,Hasn't school gone back yet ,,??
>>>Warwick opened his statement by stating that
>>>'Canterbury is the only way to go'.
>>>I am not arguing that he feels that way, but as a stated fact, this is
>>>not true. There are other options. I was suggesting to him, and
>>>others reading this thread, that his choice might be influenced by his
>>>location.
>>
>>So what . It's his choice ..
>>
>Indeed, and I was defending his right to make his choice- and
>suggesting that every other voter makes their own informed choice
>-which means they critically check out the comments of others before
>accepting them as 'fact'. That is the way to vote 'unbiasdly'.
>SNOOPY
Is that why you were asking what thier reason was for thinking as they
did and were they not a teeensy weensy bit biased ??
*** Col ***
My grandmother got burnt badly the other day ..
They sure don't fuck about at the Crematorium..
Patrick Dunford
23:02:43 GMT in
nz.reg.christchurch.general:<01be4b12$d4fd09c0$LocalHost@oliffs> didst
write unto us...
>Snoopy I do not intend to indulge your dogmatism
ROFL :)
Is that an intentional pun?
--
Views expressed in this post are my personal opinions and unless otherwise
stated not those of any organisation I am associated with.
----------------------------------------------------------
Vote for Future New Zealand
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9789/fnz/
======================================================
Patrick Dunford, ChristChurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
Snoopy
Dunford) wrote:
>Yea verily Warwick Robinson (w.rob...@netaccess.co.nz) on 28 Jan 1999
>23:02:43 GMT in
>nz.reg.christchurch.general:<01be4b12$d4fd09c0$LocalHost@oliffs> didst
>write unto us...
>
>>Snoopy I do not intend to indulge your dogmatism
>
>ROFL :)
>
>Is that an intentional pun?
>
Sssh! Warwick wasn't meant to know he was paying me a compliment!
Ross Dawson
>On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:26:43 +1300 in nz.reg.christchurch.general
>DuncanMcC wrote: in <MPG.111843713...@newsch.ihug.co.nz>:
>
>>In article <36b27c80....@news.xtra.co.nz>, da...@farrar.com says...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:52:39 -0600 in nz.reg.christchurch.general C.
>>> Spivey wrote: in <bu7r2.10950$ZF5....@typhoon01.swbell.net>:
>>>
>>> >“Faith Alone in Christ Alone”
>>> >Believing Christ died, that’s HISTORY.
>>> >Believing Christ died for YOUR sins and rose again that’s SALVATION.
>>> >1. Corinthians 15:1 – 4
>>>
>>> Well I've just gone from a maybe to a definite yes for a vote to
>>> change the name of the group to canterbury.
>>
>>Jesus... dont' bugger me up *now* David - I'm under the impression that
>>most folk want to retain the 'christchurch' feel, by simply renaming it
>>to the abreviation (that we're all familiar with) - 'chch'.
>
>I would also 95% likely vote for chch.
>
>The reason I prefer canterbury is two fold.
>
>a) Most other groups are named after the region not the major city
>b) When doing the original groups we tried dozens of different
>abbreviations such as wgtn, akl, wst-cst, bop, well, wgton etc and as
>we couldn't agree we decided no abbreviations. This would become an
>exception.
>
>Now neither of these are major factors for me - more a case of being
>purist, but that's why I prefer canterbury.
>
>DPF
>________________________________________________________________________
><david at farrar dot com>
>http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
We could always add chch.gen to the end of the canterbury title I
suppose.
Cheers for now.
Ross Dawson.