liberal or conservative?

Al Lal

unread,

May 5, 2012, 9:39:22 AM5/5/12

to

I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
categories.

Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
atheism and liberalism.

I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?

Al Lal
Consultant
Business Intelligence

arch...@googlemail.com

unread,

May 5, 2012, 10:44:34 AM5/5/12

to

On Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:39:22 PM UTC+2, Al Lal wrote:

>
> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> atheism and liberalism.

I used to think outside the box. Then I lost the box, and it all began to feel kind of pointless.

Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/costume

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

May 5, 2012, 1:04:40 PM5/5/12

to

Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
600f5d...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:

> I am a

troll.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Al Lal

unread,

May 5, 2012, 3:25:18 PM5/5/12

to

On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:

>
> > I am a
>
> troll.
>
> --
> Terry Austin
>
> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
> -- David Bilek
>
> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

You are an idiot.

I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.

Bill Snyder

unread,

May 5, 2012, 4:04:22 PM5/5/12

to

On Sat, 5 May 2012 06:39:22 -0700 (PDT), Al Lal
<alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
>categories.
>
>Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>atheism and liberalism.
>
>I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?

A commie fascist libertarian troll-hater.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,

May 5, 2012, 4:29:16 PM5/5/12

to

On 2012-05-05 15:25:18 -0400, Al Lal said:

> On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
>> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I am a
>>
>> troll.
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>

> You are an idiot.
>
> I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.

Oh, like that's news.

--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

May 5, 2012, 5:39:55 PM5/5/12

to

On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> than conservative.

OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?

> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>
> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> atheism and liberalism.

Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
easily, or not?

> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?

Anarchist apatheist.

Mark L. Fergerson

Kurt Busiek

unread,

May 5, 2012, 5:51:45 PM5/5/12

to

I am a non-Hoosier variant.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,

May 5, 2012, 6:25:49 PM5/5/12

to

On 5/5/12 9:39 AM, Al Lal wrote:

> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> atheism and liberalism.
>
> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?

i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,

May 5, 2012, 6:27:45 PM5/5/12

to

On 5/5/12 3:25 PM, Al Lal wrote:
> On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al Lal<alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
>> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I am a
>>
>> troll.

Aw, Terry, what would YOU know about TROLLS?

>
> You are an idiot.
>
> I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.

So what else is new?

William December Starr

unread,

May 5, 2012, 7:27:45 PM5/5/12

to

In article <fb804774-eea9-461c...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> said:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote
>>

>>> I am a
>>
>> troll.

>
> You are an idiot.
>
> I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.

I'm sure he's simply _devastated_ by that.

-- wds

Konrad Gaertner

unread,

May 5, 2012, 8:12:24 PM5/5/12

to

"nu...@bid.nes" wrote:
>
> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> > conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> > atheism and liberalism.
>
> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> easily, or not?

Maybe Al saw this article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/study-of-the-day-even-the-religious-lose-faith-when-they-think-critically/256402/

referring to this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.abstract?sid=e78b817a-9171-4bb9-aa8f-f6788fa3bfc4

--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll

David DeLaney

unread,

May 5, 2012, 8:42:21 PM5/5/12

to

nu...@bid.nes <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>> than conservative.
>
> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?

The RAH Pigeonhole Principle says you'll always have one pigeonhole too few.

> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
>easily, or not?

Yes, no, maybe, and other.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

David DeLaney

unread,

May 5, 2012, 8:43:15 PM5/5/12

to

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 5/5/12 9:39 AM, Al Lal wrote:
>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>> atheism and liberalism.
>>
>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>
> i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.

That's only because you're radially symmetric, so your political parties
need Venn diagrams.

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

May 5, 2012, 8:35:27 PM5/5/12

to

On May 5, 2:51 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:

> On 2012-05-05 21:39:55 +0000, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> >> than conservative.
>
> > OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>
> >> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>
> >> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> >> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> >> atheism and liberalism.
>
> > Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> > easily, or not?
>
> >> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>
> > Anarchist apatheist.
>
> I am a non-Hoosier variant.

Are moonflowers really there while you aren't watching them?

I don't really care, as long as they're there when I do look at
them.

Mark L. Fergerson

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

May 5, 2012, 8:45:30 PM5/5/12

to

On May 5, 5:42 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> >> than conservative.
>
> > OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>
> The RAH Pigeonhole Principle says you'll always have one pigeonhole too few.

Heh. I need three or four to myself during the course of a decent
conversation. Sometimes I find it necessary to build them on the fly.

> > Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> >easily, or not?
>
> Yes, no, maybe, and other.

The boxes we (design to) think inside of have doors into other
boxes. We might categorize by which doors one would prefer were kept
closed.

But then, some necessarily overlap... are they multiply connected?
Philosophical topology, anyone?

Mark L. Fergerson

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

May 5, 2012, 9:06:46 PM5/5/12

to

On May 5, 5:12 pm, Konrad Gaertner <kgaert...@tx.rr.com> wrote:

> "n...@bid.nes" wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> > > conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> > > atheism and liberalism.
>
> > Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> > easily, or not?
>
> Maybe Al saw this article:
>

> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/study-of-the-day-ev...
>
> referring to this:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.abstract?sid=e78b817a-...

Yeah, I figured as much, too.

What about those that try to straddle the duality, like the
Intelligent Design crowd? Are they using both "forms of thinking", or
neither? ;>)

Per Hofstatder's _GEB_, we are trying to analyze two apparently
incommensurable ways of human thinking *using* them. Can we resolve
them?

Mark L. Fergerson

Carl Dershem

unread,

May 5, 2012, 9:37:43 PM5/5/12

to

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> typed in news:jo47dh$rv7$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 2012-05-05 21:39:55 +0000, "nu...@bid.nes" <alien8752

@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more
liberal
>>> than conservative.
>>
>> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>>
>>> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>>>
>>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief
and
>>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically
leads to
>>> atheism and liberalism.
>>
>> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
>> easily, or not?
>>
>>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>>
>> Anarchist apatheist.
>
> I am a non-Hoosier variant.
>
> kdb

iven that the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are not
clearly defined, and have enormous amounts of grey in between, and
are almost always mis-defined by their opposition, the question is
pretty much meaningless anyway, even if people did pigeonhole
esily, which they generally do not.

And those who worry too much about such things always have other
windmills to tilt against anyway. Ther are better things to waste
time on anyway.

Blondes, Brunettes or Redheads?

cd

Bill Snyder

unread,

May 5, 2012, 10:23:41 PM5/5/12

to

You are a troll.

I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.

Robert Carnegie

unread,

May 5, 2012, 10:41:31 PM5/5/12

to

Al was trying to start a conversation, although I was
going to sit this one out.

BBC Radio 4 Extra is broadcasting instalments of the
novelization of,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_%28Doctor_Who%29

Not to give much away, there's this robot.

It's supposed to be Three Laws-y, but the bad guys
remove its main ethics circuit and then show it
somebody's photograph and explain that this is
an Enemy of Humanity, and then it goes and kills
that person.

In the future, things are done efficiently.

Kurt Busiek

unread,

May 6, 2012, 12:18:38 AM5/6/12

to

On 2012-05-06 01:37:43 +0000, Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> said:

> Blondes, Brunettes or Redheads?

Yes.

David Mitchell

unread,

May 6, 2012, 2:42:11 AM5/6/12

to

On 05/05/12 22:39, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal<alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>> than conservative.
>
> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>
>> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>>
>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>> atheism and liberalism.
>
> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> easily, or not?

From this week's New Scientist magazine:
"Humans use two cognitive systems for processing information: one fast
and intuitive, another slower and analytical. Intuitive thinking is
thought to underpin supernatural beliefs, while activating analytical
thinking can override the intuitive system - and vice versa. Ara
Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada,
used this to probe the causes of disbelief.

His student Will Gervais asked 93 university students to rate their
belief in God and other supernatural agents. Then, several weeks later,
the students underwent "priming" for analytical thinking - reading words
such as "rational", deciphering text written in hard-to-read fonts or
looking at a photo of Rodin's The Thinker (pictured). Controls were
given less analytically charged tasks.

The researchers then asked the students to again rate their supernatural
beliefs. The students who had been exposed to analytical priming
downgraded their belief in the supernatural, regardless of their
previous degree of belief (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1215647).

The simplest explanation is if intuitive thinking leads to belief, and
analytical thinking somehow suppresses this process. "Habitual
analytical thinking could be one reason scientists tend to be
disbelievers," notes Norenzayan."

--
David Mitchell
No, not that one.

Gary R. Schmidt

unread,

May 6, 2012, 4:52:53 AM5/6/12

to

On 5/05/2012 11:39 PM, Al Lal wrote:
> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
> categories.

[SNIP]

First of all you will have to come up with definitions of "liberal" and
"conservative" that apply outside the particular political insularities
of where we all live.

My Australian definition of "conservative" appears to be close to a
USAnian definition of "rabid communist", let's not go where "liberal"
takes us! :-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

arch...@googlemail.com

unread,

May 6, 2012, 5:09:50 AM5/6/12

to

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 8:42:11 AM UTC+2, David Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> The simplest explanation is if intuitive thinking leads to belief, and
> analytical thinking somehow suppresses this process.

I've got an even simpler explanation: analytical thinking is of the Devil.

Matt Huhes
http://www.archonate.com/costume

Jorgen Grahn

unread,

May 6, 2012, 6:04:52 AM5/6/12

to

On Sun, 2012-05-06, David DeLaney wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>On 5/5/12 9:39 AM, Al Lal wrote:
>>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>>> atheism and liberalism.
>>>
>>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>>
>> i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.
>
> That's only because you're radially symmetric, so your political parties
> need Venn diagrams.

Also, he should neuter his shoggoths now. Later might be too late.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

Al Lal

unread,

May 6, 2012, 8:35:37 AM5/6/12

to

I think it is difficult to categorize people. To help answer this
question, maybe we can find out in USA, what percentage of people
consider themselves republicans or democrats.

I am writing from India, but I spent eight years in USA.

Al Lal

unread,

May 6, 2012, 12:55:05 PM5/6/12

to

Sea Wasp wrote:
> > I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
> i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.

I'm a conservative liberal socialist. The Political Compass puts me
near to the Dalai Lama. (mdfs.net/jgh/Docs/Politics/Compass)

JGH

Mark Zenier

unread,

May 5, 2012, 1:11:28 PM5/5/12

to

In article <2d507e53-b5ff-4503...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,

Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal

>than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
>categories.

Only if you have a rather narrow definition of "SF". I'd go along with
this if you mean the classic "idea story". But that got overrun by
a crowd of unicorns and dragons, back about 25 years ago.

>Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>atheism and liberalism.

The majority of what's marketed as SF now seems backward looking
to me. There doesn't seem to be much future in it, anymore.

>I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?

That's not a safe question to answer on the Internet.

Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Butch Malahide

unread,

May 6, 2012, 2:33:21 PM5/6/12

to

On May 6, 10:04 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 18:52:53 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
>

> <grschm...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >First of all you will have to come up with definitions of "liberal" and
> >"conservative" that apply outside the particular political insularities
> >of where we all live.
>
> >My Australian definition of "conservative" appears to be close to a
> >USAnian definition of "rabid communist", let's not go where "liberal"
> >takes us! :-)
>
> Especially when we include time. Ronald Reagan would not pass the
> conservative litmus test of the people today who deify him for his
> conservativism.

Would JFK (first president I voted for) pass the liberal litmus test
today? Would HST or FDR?

Wayne Throop

unread,

May 6, 2012, 2:36:14 PM5/6/12

to

:: Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and

:: conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
:: atheism and liberalism.

Eh. Oversimplistic at best. Expecially since there are many many
knee-jerk emotional liberals; or better, knee-jerk emotional
*any*things, ranging from commernists to objectervists, and
everything in between and off to the sides.

Not to mention that there are plenty of calm, thoughtful, theists.
Well, maybe "plenty" is an exageration, but they're out there.
And certainly the very air abounds in rabid frothing atheists.

:: I am a left-center liberal atheist. =A0What are you?

: "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com>
: Anarchist apatheist.

Hm. I was going to say "apatharchist / apatheist", but that's not
really a reasonable characterization. So I suppose I'd have to settle
on minarchist/apatheist. Except with the libertarian/capitalist
excesses filtered out, so that my minarchist variant approaches apatheism.

Or... I don't care what the government does, as long as it isn't much.

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

May 6, 2012, 4:21:18 PM5/6/12

to

Silly person, *everybody* is Terry's bitch.

At least, in Terry's mind. ;>)

> I hereby banish you from my kingdom (earth).

Time for yet another revolution? How tiresome.

Mark L. Fergerson

Konrad Gaertner

unread,

May 6, 2012, 5:35:28 PM5/6/12

to

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Ronald Reagan would not pass the
> conservative litmus test of the people today who deify him for his
> conservativism.

Has anyone ever passed that test? After all, their choice for the
next president is a cultist who wrote the prototype for Obamacare.

--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll

Howard Brazee

unread,

May 6, 2012, 5:34:40 PM5/6/12

to

On Sat, 5 May 2012 17:11:28 GMT, mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

>>I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>
>That's not a safe question to answer on the Internet.

What kind of danger would do you think Al Lal is in for posting his
self-evaluation?

Howard Brazee

unread,

May 6, 2012, 5:38:38 PM5/6/12

to

As I implied, times change. The word "conservative" implies a
desire to not change, but in reality it tends to be to return to the
values that were taught to one when one was young. Not to the values
of previous generations. It's not that simple, there is a lot about
whether we should trust whomever we set up as authorities.

What's funny is when we choose an icon (such as Reagan or FDR),
without looking at what they were really like. Or Jesus Christ.

David DeLaney

unread,

May 6, 2012, 7:42:32 PM5/6/12

to

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>>>I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>>
>>That's not a safe question to answer on the Internet.
>
>What kind of danger would do you think Al Lal is in for posting his
>self-evaluation?

Well, it can be rather startling to find that Rule 34 now applies to you, for
one thing.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Carl Dershem

unread,

May 6, 2012, 10:38:08 PM5/6/12

to

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> typed in news:jo4u2u$634$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 2012-05-06 01:37:43 +0000, Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net>
said:
>
>> Blondes, Brunettes or Redheads?
>
> Yes.
>
> kdb

Agreed.
:D

cd

Bill Swears

unread,

May 7, 2012, 12:41:41 AM5/7/12

to

On 5/5/2012 1:39 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> easily, or not?

unread,

May 7, 2012, 12:04:32 PM5/7/12

to

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:4881539.982.1336272091743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbq5:

> On Sunday, May 6, 2012 3:23:41 AM UTC+1, Bill Snyder wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 May 2012 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Al Lal

>> <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> ><tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
>> >> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > I am a
>> >>
>> >> troll.
>> >>

>> >> --
>> >> Terry Austin
>> >>
>> >> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
>> >> asshole." -- David Bilek
>> >>
>> >> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
>> >

>> >You are an idiot.
>> >
>> >I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.
>>

>> You are a troll.
>>
>> I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.
>

> Al was trying to start a conversation, although I was
> going to sit this one out.

No, he wasn't. He was trolling, You swallowed the hook quite
eagerly.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

May 7, 2012, 12:05:52 PM5/7/12

to

Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:3fe1409d-32b1-4a66...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.c
om:

Billie's spent his time in the swing, and the odd taste on the ball
gag in your mouth is the residue of his vomit.

But right now, son, you're my bitch.

>
> I hereby banish you from my kingdom (earth).
>

Feitsy one, are you? S'Okay. I like feisty. It's more fun when they
finally give in, for me and for you.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

May 7, 2012, 12:06:12 PM5/7/12

to

Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote in
news:yOSdnbjGK9Gp6zvS...@giganews.com:

> Al Lal <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you Terry's bitch?
>
> Of course he is. _Everyone_ is Terry's bitch. Didn't you get the
> memo?
>

It's tattooed on his penis.

Michael Stemper

unread,

May 7, 2012, 1:48:49 PM5/7/12

to

In article <49a15f97-f680-499e...@g6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>, Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> writes:

>On May 6, 10:04=A0am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 18:52:53 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschm...@acm.org> wrote:

>> >First of all you will have to come up with definitions of "liberal" and
>> >"conservative" that apply outside the particular political insularities
>> >of where we all live.
>>
>> >My Australian definition of "conservative" appears to be close to a
>> >USAnian definition of "rabid communist", let's not go where "liberal"
>> >takes us! :-)
>>

>> Especially when we include time. =A0 =A0Ronald Reagan would not pass the

>> conservative litmus test of the people today who deify him for his
>> conservativism.
>
>Would JFK (first president I voted for) pass the liberal litmus test
>today?

Well, he set the top marginal income tax rate to 50%. Does that count?
Qbrf vg fgvyy pbhag vs ur *ybjrerq* vg gb 50%?

I think that Tricky Dick was pretty liberal by today's standards.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Visualize whirled peas!

Richard R. Hershberger

unread,

May 7, 2012, 4:47:36 PM5/7/12

to

On May 6, 2:36 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> :: conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> :: atheism and liberalism.
>
> Eh. Oversimplistic at best. Expecially since there are many many
> knee-jerk emotional liberals; or better, knee-jerk emotional
> *any*things, ranging from commernists to objectervists, and
> everything in between and off to the sides.
>
> Not to mention that there are plenty of calm, thoughtful, theists.
> Well, maybe "plenty" is an exageration, but they're out there.
> And certainly the very air abounds in rabid frothing atheists.

Then there is the equating of conservative with theist and liberal
with atheist. While conservative theists get the press attention,
there are plenty of liberal theists out there. I suspect that there
are a lot of conservative atheists too, but tribal affiliation
wouldn't encourage them to emphasize the atheist part.

>
> :: I am a left-center liberal atheist. =A0What are you?
>

> : "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com>

Robert Carnegie

unread,

May 7, 2012, 6:08:57 PM5/7/12

to

On Monday, May 7, 2012 5:04:32 PM UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:4881539.982.1336272091743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbq5:
>

> > Al was trying to start a conversation, although I was
> > going to sit this one out.
>
> No, he wasn't. He was trolling, You swallowed the hook quite
> eagerly.

Often, what you say doesn't matter. I think this here
was one of those times.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

May 7, 2012, 6:36:25 PM5/7/12

to

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in

news:17818759.1301.1336428537894.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbe
z18:

But then, you would.

Scott Lurndal

unread,

May 7, 2012, 7:04:56 PM5/7/12

to

If the conversation had started "Do you think SF/F author XYZ is liberal or conservative",
Al's question _may_ have been relevent to RASF. As it was, it is difficult to not
consider it trolling, or de minimus, off topic.

scott

Kip Williams

unread,

May 7, 2012, 7:07:37 PM5/7/12

to

Richard R. Hershberger wrote:

> Then there is the equating of conservative with theist and liberal
> with atheist. While conservative theists get the press attention,
> there are plenty of liberal theists out there. I suspect that there
> are a lot of conservative atheists too, but tribal affiliation
> wouldn't encourage them to emphasize the atheist part.

Early in the Intro to Religion class I just finished, I came to the
conclusion that a good definition of atheist would be "One who does not
believe in God -and- doesn't attend church."

Kip W
rasfw

Mark Zenier

unread,

May 7, 2012, 1:39:47 PM5/7/12

to

In article <uhrdq75bnc2o3mcon...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 May 2012 17:11:28 GMT, mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
>wrote:
>
>>>I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>>
>>That's not a safe question to answer on the Internet.
>
>What kind of danger would do you think Al Lal is in for posting his
>self-evaluation?

In the wrong neighborhood in South Asia? Death.

Data lasts forever and crimes can become retroactive.

Nix

unread,

May 8, 2012, 7:15:38 PM5/8/12

to

On 6 May 2012, Bill Snyder told this:

> I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.

"... whereas you are a streak of black slime in a crack in the floor,
soon to be sucked into oblivion!"

--
NULL && (void)

Tim McDaniel

unread,

May 8, 2012, 7:55:12 PM5/8/12

to

In article <ZAYpr.1125$HW6...@newsfe20.iad>,

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Early in the Intro to Religion class I just finished, I came to the
>conclusion that a good definition of atheist would be "One who does not
>believe in God -and- doesn't attend church."

And a good definition of Anglican would be "One who does not
believe in God -and- attends church."

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

David DeLaney

unread,

May 9, 2012, 1:56:22 AM5/9/12

to

...I am Hope.

Dave "someone else has to be Charity" DeLaney

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

May 9, 2012, 1:16:50 PM5/9/12

to

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
news:slrnjqk0j...@gatekeeper.vic.com:

> Nix <nix-ra...@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
>>On 6 May 2012, Bill Snyder told this:
>>> I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.
>>
>>"... whereas you are a streak of black slime in a crack in the
>>floor, soon to be sucked into oblivion!"
>
> ...I am Hope.

Izzat your stripper name?

>
> Dave "someone else has to be Charity" DeLaney

And you do doubles?

ppint. at pplay

unread,

May 9, 2012, 5:08:07 PM5/9/12

to

- hi; in article, <jocbp0$7lk$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
tm...@panix.com "Tim McDaniel" observed:
> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[..] a good definition of atheist would be "One who does not believe

>>in God -and- doesn't attend church."
>
>And a good definition of Anglican would be "One who does not believe
>in God -and- attends church."

- aka "the tory party at prayer"...

- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"The English country gentleman galloping after a fox -
the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."
_A Woman of No Importance_ - oscar wilde, 1893

David DeLaney

unread,

May 9, 2012, 7:29:22 PM5/9/12

to

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in

>> Nix <nix-ra...@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
>>>On 6 May 2012, Bill Snyder told this:
>>>> I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.
>>>
>>>"... whereas you are a streak of black slime in a crack in the
>>>floor, soon to be sucked into oblivion!"
>>
>> ...I am Hope.
>
>Izzat your stripper name?

No, as I understand things that would be Hillsboro Khan.

>> Dave "someone else has to be Charity" DeLaney
>
>And you do doubles?

Doesn't everyone?

Dave "one for my baby, and just one more for the roooooad" DeLaney

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

May 9, 2012, 7:44:39 PM5/9/12

to

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in

news:slrnjqlua...@gatekeeper.vic.com:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
>>> Nix <nix-ra...@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>On 6 May 2012, Bill Snyder told this:
>>>>> I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.
>>>>
>>>>"... whereas you are a streak of black slime in a crack in the
>>>>floor, soon to be sucked into oblivion!"
>>>
>>> ...I am Hope.
>>
>>Izzat your stripper name?
>
> No, as I understand things that would be Hillsboro Khan.

That's a terrible stripper name.

>
>>> Dave "someone else has to be Charity" DeLaney
>>
>>And you do doubles?
>
> Doesn't everyone?

Only if you pay extra.

>
> Dave "one for my baby, and just one more for the roooooad" DeLaney

--

Walter Bushell

unread,

May 22, 2012, 6:43:52 AM5/22/12

to

In article
<4881539.982.1336272091743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbq5>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 6, 2012 3:23:41 AM UTC+1, Bill Snyder wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 May 2012 12:25:18 -0700 (PDT), Al Lal
> > <alal1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> > ><tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
> > >> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
> > >>
> > >> > I am a
> > >>
> > >> troll.
> > >>

> > >> --
> > >> Terry Austin
> > >>
> > >> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
> > >> -- David Bilek
> > >>
> > >> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
> > >

> > >You are an idiot.
> > >
> > >I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.
> >
> > You are a troll.
> >

> > I hereby declare you a grease spot on the floor.
>

> Al was trying to start a conversation, although I was
> going to sit this one out.
>

> BBC Radio 4 Extra is broadcasting instalments of the
> novelization of,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_%28Doctor_Who%29
>
> Not to give much away, there's this robot.
>
> It's supposed to be Three Laws-y, but the bad guys
> remove its main ethics circuit and then show it
> somebody's photograph and explain that this is
> an Enemy of Humanity, and then it goes and kills
> that person.
>
> In the future, things are done efficiently.

Terry Prachert has the first law amended by, 'except when told to by
properly designated authority', but that's for golems.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.