Devout atheists
Mr Jinx
I have some sympathy with devout atheists. In the vacuum a godless
world creates a belief system of some kind is sure to assert itself.
The absence of a mighty creator leaves a mighty hole.
I have even more sympathy with agnostics (in fact I am one - I'm
almost sure). We have to contend without faith of any kind at least
half of the time (or half of us does all the time!)
I have met self-proclaimed atheists who seem far godlier than
Christians and I have met several Christians who seem considerably
less godly than even the most bitter atheist.
A dog knows who is kind.
Mr Jinx
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> The absence of a mighty creator leaves a mighty hole
Well, only if you considered there might be one in the first place.
I'm lucky - I've survived 38 years on earth without being misguided by
religion and have enough faith in myself and other human beings that
reliance on the supernatural is unnecessary. Unless you mean
Werewolves - I couldn't do without them:
Gemini Jackson
I too disagree. In fact I had a huge hole I was constantly throwing
confidence and self awareness into until it hit me like a ton of
bricks one day what I was doing. To counter, I'd say that belief of a
mighty creator or supernatural forces is in fact the biggest hole you
can have in your life. Werewolves AND Vampires excepted.
badlands420
> I have some sympathy with devout atheists.
"Devout atheist" is an oxymoron.
> I have met self-proclaimed atheists who seem far godlier than
Christians
If you use "godly" as a compimentary term, you're certainly not an agnostic.
>and I have met several Christians who seem considerably
less godly than even the most bitter atheist.
Bitter? About what?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> "Devout atheist" is an oxymoron
I agree. Atheism* is the rejection of religion, so applying religious
constrictions of any kind to it is inappropriate
*it's a misleading term used in this context, because you're referring
to it like it's an alternate branch of religion, as opposed to the
antithesis of
really real
> And for a
> religious devotee, even the worst sinner cherishes his/her
> relationship with God as something of the highest spiritual value that
> the purest, sweetest and most principled of Atheists simply doesn't
> have.
I agree with you about what the Atheists don't have. We don't have that
pure, sweet spiritual attachment to a personified Creator/Controller.
It's much more unstable being an Atheist. We have to figure things out
with open eyes.
The problem with the worst sinner is, though, that because of his
relationship with God, he has no way of tempering his sins. Religion
tends to cause immorality.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> I have some sympathy with devout atheists
When I first saw your post I thought it was 'Dylan Atheists' - those
who deny the existence of Dylan..!
gemjack
Well, you can be devout at a lot of things. I don't see it as only
being used to express devotion to religion. Devout vegitarians,
devout joggers, devout statesman, devout blues players...
-gj
gemjack
vegEtarians dammit (jus' so you know I'm no unlearned).
-gj
really real
>
> Lots of believers don't believe in a personal God.
That's an oxymoron.
If you don't want to talk about a personal god, you have to stop calling
him "god."
Theism is a belief in god. If you don't believe in something that has a
personal name, like god, then you must be a non-theist.
really real
>>
>> Theism is a belief in god. If you don't believe in something that has a
>> personal name, like god, then you must be a non-theist.
>
>
> If this is meant seriously, then you sound even more confused. Is it?
Of course you shouldn't respond.
As they say, if you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
Don't think through the contradictions of your beliefs. Religious
beliefs are not for the thinking.
Ron Fowler
really real
>>
>> Don't think through the contradictions of your beliefs. Religious
>> beliefs are not for the thinking.
>
It's post bud comedown from fake spiritualism.
Look, treadleson, it's really simple. If you don't believe that there is
a personification behind the universe, then stop calling it by a male
name, and stop using the word for it that people use for the Being that
created us in his own image.
There is no god. You seem to agree, but are afraid to say the words.
badlands420
"really real" <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:_DjPm.53513$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
If anyone's looking for the difference between an atheist and an
anti-religious zealot, look no further than the above. Don has no business
calling himself an atheist. He gives the rest of us a bad name with his
bigotry and intolerance, which are the same things he claims to loathe about
religion. Too bad he'll never be able to see the irony.
really real
>
> If anyone's looking for the difference between an atheist and an
> anti-religious zealot, look no further than the above. Don has no business
> calling himself an atheist. He gives the rest of us a bad name with his
> bigotry and intolerance, which are the same things he claims to loathe about
> religion. Too bad he'll never be able to see the irony.
You think that I'm a bigot for trying to get Treadleson to stop being so
dogmatic? That's a laugh.
What about the way you campaign here against gays in the military, or
against health care reform. You're the bigot, badlands.
badlands420
> You think that I'm a bigot for trying to get Treadleson to stop being so
> dogmatic? That's a laugh.
I think you're a bigot for a lot of reasons, and I'm far from alone in this
belief.
> What about the way you campaign here against gays in the military, or
> against health care reform. You're the bigot, badlands.
Feeble attempt to change subject noted. Try to be less predictable, Don.
marcus
I have found born-again Christians and atheists to be the most
annoying and rabid of proselytizers. Each 100% sure that they are
correct.
really real
>
> I have found born-again Christians and atheists to be the most
> annoying and rabid of proselytizers. Each 100% sure that they are
> correct.
The difference is that the atheist knows what he doesn't know.
badlands420
>I have found born-again Christians and atheists to be the most
>annoying and rabid of proselytizers. Each 100% sure that they are
correct.
This is just more of your typical lazy stereotyping. Also, please tell me
how an atheist goes about proselytizing. Since I've never seen an atheist
try to convert someone else to atheism, I'm curious as to your reason for
using that particular word.
Martin
> This is just more of your typical lazy stereotyping. Also, please tell me
> how an atheist goes about proselytizing. Since I've never seen an atheist
> try to convert someone else to atheism, I'm curious as to your reason for
> using that particular word
I don't suppose every non religious person would necessarily call
themselves an atheist. In my experience and amongst my friends,
family etc, religious people are the ones that require labeling
because they're not the norm; those who aren't religious are just
'most people'. In a mostly secular society, believers in religion are
the people bringing the concept of God into the equation, so the use
of the term 'atheist' seems unnecessary - it's what I assume most
people I meet to be, seeing as the large majority of them so far have
been
really real
>
>> Each 100% sure that they are correct.
>
> posting style for a valid reason.
What's the tag team got against Marcus? I find his posts
unobjectionable. Are you trying to change Marcus?
badlands420
> What's the tag team got against Marcus? I find his posts
> unobjectionable.
You shouldn't. You and he are intellectual soulmates.
really real
> Every time I read one of his posts, I hope that it won't be annoying.
> Somehow. That it won't be bombastic. Or self-righteous. Or self-serving.
> Or paranoid. Or oblivious. Or simplistic. Or hypocritical. Or hateful.
> Or obsessive. Or prejudiced. Or painfully unfunny.
You have such a low tolerance level, pr. I'm sure you wouldn't want
others to judge you the way you judge others.
marcus
It is pretty amzing, isn't it?
I make a statement that I am sure is within the realm of experience of
others, and somehow I am judged as pompous or arrogant.
Surprisingly, the cybercritics haven't weighed in on my take on how to
hang toilet paper...over the top...or from the bottom.
However, I would like to ask badlands and Poisoned Rose one
question>
Which hand do you use to wipe your ass after a bowel movement?
marcus
and yet every single word he used in his paragraph denoting what he
hopes to find when he reads one of my posts is identical to how I feel
when I read one of his.
He just doesn't get it...and alas, the poor soul never will.
marcus
and again, with this utterance, as you have done many times before,
you prove my point.
badlands420
>and again, with this utterance, as you have done many times before,
you prove my point.
"You just proved my point" is right up there with "you live in your mom's
basement" in the pantheon of pathetically inept usenet flames. Well done.
badlands420
> Which hand do you use to wipe your ass after a bowel movement?
Yours.
marcus
You live in your Mom's basement?
marcus
.
>
> The irony you somehow pretend to miss is all the *countless* times you
> have presented your opinion as absolute "100% correctness."
>
I don't know of anyone who considers their opinion in terms of being
100 % correct, except for you thinking that I think my opinions are.
badlands420
> I don't know of anyone who considers their opinion in terms of being
100 % correct,
Your intellectual soulmate does.
marcus
Where as PR and you are vying for "Church Lady".
badlands420
> Where as PR and you are vying for "Church Lady".
"Whereas" is one word, dumbass.
marcus
> > Where as PR and you are vying for "Church Lady".
>
> "Whereas" is one word, dumbass.
Once again, thanks for proving my point.
badlands420
gemjack
wrote:
>Surprisingly, the cybercritics haven't weighed in on my take on how to
>hang toilet paper...over the top...or from the bottom.
I tried it the other way (hanging from the back) today, you know, just
to see. I ended up wrapped up like a mummy on the bathroom floor
swimming in my own blood and excrement. Took my wife and the
neighbors over an hour to find and free me. That 'roll facing
backwards' thing is bad news I tell ya!
-gj
marcus
> > > have presented your opinion as absolute "100% correctness."
>
> > I don't know of anyone who considers their opinion in terms of being
> > 100 % correct, except for you thinking that I think my opinions are.
>
> opinions ARE opinions. I wonder if you consider ANY of your political
> views "opinions" -- you never state them as anything but "truth" which
> can only be opposed due to misinformation or naiveté.
On the contrary, it is you who always insist that I do that.
marcus
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:07:20 -0800 (PST), marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Surprisingly, the cybercritics haven't weighed in on my take on how to
> >hang toilet paper...over the top...or from the bottom.
>
> I tried it the other way (hanging from the back) today, you know, just
> to see. I ended up wrapped up like a mummy on the bathroom floor
> swimming in my own blood and excrement. Took my wife and the
> neighbors over an hour to find and free me. That 'roll facing
> backwards' thing is bad news I tell ya!
>
> -gj
LOL...maybe you need a bidet. ;-)
marcus
> claim "victory" in making a junior-high level grammar mistake.
>
> I guess you really do have a problem with word divisions. You split
> "whereas" when you shouldn't, and still insist on splitting "already"
> into "all ready" when you shouldn't. How odd.
enough all ready.
marcus
>> Late in GWB's term, I recall you even going so far as saying that anyone
> who still supported him must be mentally ill.
Apparently, you have never delved into hyperbole in anything you've
ever written. Hey, let's nominate you for sainthood.
>
> Your posting history speaks for itself. When have you EVER simply
> shrugged "OK, we have different views here" rather than condescendingly
> smirking about the opponent being a dupe of the corporate-controlled
> media, too young to know better, a headcase, etc. etc.? Why do you
> pretend this pattern of response isn't glaringly obvious?
Well, contrary to your assertion above, I do not do that. However,
there have been times when someone has posted something so obviously
incorrect or biased beyond belief that maybe the "facts" they based
their opinion upon weren't entirely correct. I haven't been afraid to
tell them so in those situations...and maybe those "facts" were
stereotypes and myths perpetrated by corporate-controlled media, of
from not having experience something directly, or their posts did
indicate that we were dealing with someone whose head was wrapped very
tight. You, of all people, the eternal flame of criticism, ready to
pounce upon and cut-down to size any unfortunate soul who, in your
opinion, deviates from what your concept of good art is, have a lot of
nerve accusing me of condescension.
>
> > > It's just so easy to demonstrate what a pompous ass you are, because
> > > you're so wholly unable to defend yourself except through evasion and
> > > vague condescension.-
See above.
>
> > It is more telling of your character and psychological make-up that
> > you believe posters to Usenet must always be "defending" their
> > opinions.
>
> You always lean so, so heavily on this pathetic cop-out.
You consider it a cop-out...I consider it a fairly good read on your
character (or lack thereof)
>
> You pretend to be "above" debate, but it's really just a case of you
> being a remarkably witless, dogmatic person who has no ability
> whatsoever to regroup and "think on his feet" in the moment. So you're
> above debate, but NOT above posting endless, cheap insults about
> people's mommies, wiping asses and the like? What a ridiculous
> intellectual fraud you continue to be.
If I ever were to discuss something with you in person, you would see
how ridiculous your assertion is of me not being able to think on my
feet. I would leave you wimpering in a corner, crouched in a fetal
position, as I don't suffer fools gladly, or quietly.
>
> Your anti-debate pose might make sense if it wasn't so *terribly*
> important to you to post pompous, sanctimonious "lectures" on a variety
> of self-serving topics. But no, you keep right on pontificating. You
> simply want a forum where you can orate all you like, without any fear
> of retaliation. It's why you created a Google group for yourself, but
> apparently the smallness of that audience does not satisfy you.
I did not create a Google group just for myself. Admittedly, it is
small, with only a handful of active posters...but for a Google group
it actually doesn't do badly. And yes, I sometimes use it as others
might use a blog...so what. I don't censor people. There have been
people who have posted things I don't agree with. You could join if
you wanted to. I've only banned two posters, and that was because one
was spamming, and the other one was getting abusive, "Mr. Nice Old
Man" style abusive.
>
> > Did Mommy withhold dessert until you told her exactly why you failed
> > to receive an "A" on an exam.
>
> Going lowball yet again, I see. And actually, that problem rarely
> happened for me, sorry. HS valedictorian, you know.
Hmmm, no pompousness or arrogance there.
marcus
"That's not pompousness. It's a simple statement of fact."
Oh, how that line is going to come back to haunt you.
badlands420
> Oh, how that line is going to come back to haunt you.
PR isn't lying when he says you offer nothing but bluster and posturing. You
should go back and read your own posts sometime, and ask yourself "What if
the roles were reversed and someone said the same things to me? Would I take
them credibly or seriously?" It would require a degree of self-awareness
well in excess of anything you've demonstrated here, but I think it would be
an illuminating experience if you allowed it to be.
marcus
Apparently, you haven't read some of my posts carefully.
I have experienced someone saying arrogant, pretentious, pedantic
lecturing words to me...over a period in excess of ten years. He
considers them to be facts...unvarnished truth...right on all counts.
And when I point out to him that the very accusations he makes to me
are the same that I (and others along the years) see in his posts...he
falls back on the lame "pot..kettle" excuse...as if that lets him off
the hook.
You are trying to be a PR wannabe...but let's face it...he was a high
school valedictorian...you can't possibly be that smart.
badlands420
>You are trying to be a PR wannabe...but let's face it...he was a high
>school valedictorian...you can't possibly be that smart.
This is precisely the type of meaningless, empty bluster I'm talking about.
It's fitting that you included a high school reference, because that's where
this sort of mentality belongs.
marcus
How convenient for you to ignore the core of my remarks in that post:
"I have experienced someone saying arrogant, pretentious, pedantic
lecturing words to me...over a period in excess of ten years. He
considers them to be facts...unvarnished truth...right on all counts.
And when I point out to him that the very accusations he makes to me
are the same that I (and others along the years) see in his
posts...he
falls back on the lame "pot..kettle" excuse...as if that lets him off
the hook."
That is also a PR tactic..to ignore something I post which is
difficult to refute...doesn't work for him any more than it works for
you.
badlands420
> That is also a PR tactic..to ignore something I post which is
difficult to refute...
You posted a list of personal criticisms that has nothing to do with me. Why
would I be interested in "refuting" it?
marcus
> You fraud, fraud, fraud.
til your Daddy took your T-bird awaaa--ee-ay.
marcus
"Considering how much you like to mewl about me being a "stalker,"
it's
odd that I've never tried to join/post in that group, isn't it?
Hmmmmm."
Yes, it is odd...so why don't you?
You are a stalker...even going so far as to comb the internet in
search of photos of me.
badlands420
>You are a stalker...even going so far as to comb the internet in
search of photos of me.
I found one.
marcus
> marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Considering how much you like to mewl about me being a "stalker,"
> > it's
> > odd that I've never tried to join/post in that group, isn't it?
> > Hmmmmm."
>
> > Yes, it is odd...so why don't you?
>
> was already a member*. You don't seem to "get" this at all. Or just
> pretend not to.
Wow...that's pretty lame...even for you.
>
> > You are a stalker...even going so far as to comb the internet in
> > search of photos of me.
>
> You are such a pitiful fool. Always trying to play victim.
and yet, I hear no denial from you.
Interesting.
badlands420
> Why don't you start a thread analyzing your favorite Dylan album, where
> you justify your choice purely in terms of remembering what you were
> doing when you first heard it?
Has Marcus ever written an on-topic post here? I sure can't recall any. I
know he's inserted the word "Dylan" into a few of his subject lines, but
then he just flew into his typical cut and paste rants about "Sixties Gen
blah blah blah," so it's not like that counts.
badlands420
> Now and then he'll defend his interest in Dylan -- typically, in terms
> of self-absorbed, first-person nostalgia -- by mentioning that he "even"
> wrote a school paper on Dylan once. You know, back in the "Sixties."
I've found that he will give thoughtful answers to music questions, it just
requires a great deal of prodding to get him there.
marcus
Here's something you don't understand:
I don't exist to please you, or to conform to your criteria of what a
Usenet poster should be.
So, I post what I want, when I want, and how I want.
And isn't that just too bad for your thin skin.
marcus
> marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Wow...that's pretty lame...even for you.
>
> and illogic, you repeatedly whine about me "following" you to forums
> where I was already a subscriber *before* you started pontificating and
> self-promoting there. And now you pretend you can't figure out why I
> don't "follow" you to your masturbatory "60s" group.
You are most likely referring to alt.obituaries, which I posted
without knowing you were a "member". Then, you appeared from nowhere
to pick at something I said that got under your skin as Usenet watch-
dog. How was I to know that you had been there first. It sure felt
like stalking to me...since I had greatly reduced my posts in
rec.music.beatles where I first chanced upon your scolding lectures
years before.
>
> > > > You are a stalker...even going so far as to comb the internet in
> > > > search of photos of me.
>
> > > You are such a pitiful fool. Always trying to play victim.
>
> > and yet, I hear no denial from you.
>
> > Interesting.
>
> That you rate throwing a name into a Google image search as the utmost
> "far" reaches of cyberstalking shows what a naive, self-pitying fool you
> are. It's also worth noting that you use such "detective work" against
> me in arguments much, much more than I do against you. Heck, when I
> recently "upset" you by bringing up your appearance, I was actually
> mentioning it to *defend* you from Badlands' unjust speculations about
> your looks. I'm sure your frothing martyr complex has deemed that you
> forget about this.
Here's the thing, I never looked to see if by googling my name for
photos that any would turn up...UNTIL YOU MENTIONED IT. You are
trying to gloss over the fact that you actually did that. One wonders
why. And one wonders why, all of a sudden, after a decade of
relentless attacks upon my prose and character, you felt it necessary
to "defend" me against someone going into hyberbole about my
appearance. Yes, you are so noble...give me a break. The core of
this situtation is that you stalked me to the point of trying to find
a photo of me, and are now, in your inflated egotistical mind, trying
to act as my protector...and I'm supposed to be grateful?
>
> But why are you wasting energy on posts to me when you could be
> daydreaming about what you did during the '60s?
At this point, my lasting gratitude is that no one had to endure your
rhetoric during the Sixties.
>
> Why don't you start a thread analyzing your favorite Dylan album, where
> you justify your choice purely in terms of remembering what you were
> doing when you first heard it?
My favorite albums are "Highway 61" and "Bringing It All Back Home".
>
> I also loved that post where you called me arrogant, simultaneous with
> declaring that you don't suffer fools gladly, and that I would curl into
> a cowering foetal ball if exposed to your terrifying physical presence.
> More posts like that, please.
You misunderstood me, I wasn't talking about my "terrifying physical
presence", I was talking about you having to deal with my wit.
>
> I wonder which one or two sentences you'll prune this post down to,
> before you add a lazy, one-line swipe.
SunDog
SunDog
badlands420
Here's something you don't understand:
I don't exist to please you, or to conform to your criteria of what a
Usenet poster should be.
So, I post what I want, when I want, and how I want.
And isn't that just too bad for your thin skin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you really just write all the above and then accuse *someone else* of
having thin skin? My god, talk about lacking self-awareness!
badlands420
> My favorite albums are "Highway 61" and "Bringing It All Back Home".
It seems odd that you'd list an album as your favorite and get the title
wrong.
marcus
It seems odd that you're so anal.
Would you be upset if I said "Pepper"?
marcus
> > Here's the thing, I never looked to see if by googling my name for
> > photos that any would turn up...UNTIL YOU MENTIONED IT. You are
> > trying to gloss over the fact that you actually did that. One wonders
> > why.
>
> text I don't like in someone else's post.
You are being evasive, instead of explaining why you felt a need to
look for my photo, you are stalling by addressing clipping text. You
still haven't explained yourself.
evade evade evade (where have I heard that before?)
>
> > And one wonders why, all of a sudden, after a decade of
> > relentless attacks upon my prose and character, you felt it necessary
> > to "defend" me against someone going into hyberbole about my
> > appearance.
>
> Because unlike you, I argue fairly.
Why, did you feel it necessary to reply to Badland's Sixties
stereotype at all. I thought he was trying to be funny, and didn't
take it seriously at all...and I was the object of the supposed
derision. So, why did you feel the need to "argue fairly". Is
everything on Usenet an argument opportunity for you. If it is, why
don't you argue with your neighbor or a friend, and give all of us a
break.
prediction: you will evade a direct answer on the above.
>
> (Here's a tip: Respond to the above by feigning "laughter." This will
> give you a vague appearance of being righteously superior, without
> actually posing any sort of counterargument.)
>
> > The core of
> > this situtation is that you stalked me to the point of trying to find
> > a photo of me, and are now, in your inflated egotistical mind, trying
> > to act as my protector...and I'm supposed to be grateful?
>
> Phew. Climb down off the cross already.
You mean the one you've been pounding nails in for ten years?
>
badlands420
> It seems odd that you're so anal.
My wife doesn't seem to mind.
>Would you be upset if I said "Pepper"?
1. Who said I was upset?
2. If you hadn't used quotes (which is improper for album titles anyway),
maybe this would be a credible defense.
badlands420
> Why, did you feel it necessary to reply to Badland's Sixties
stereotype at all.
Damn those commas and apostrophes, always popping up in the wrong place.
badlands420
"poisoned rose" <pros...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:prose1235-ED07C...@nothing.attdns.com...
> poisoned rose <pros...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't believe you're actually trying to grind an ox
>
> Ha. Terrible typo.
If nothing else, it makes for a great mental image.
marcus
> > You are being evasive, instead of explaining why you felt a need to
> > look for my photo, you are stalling by addressing clipping text. You
> > still haven't explained yourself.
>
> > evade evade evade (where have I heard that before?)
>
> curious. What more needs to be said? And I did it quite awhile ago. It
> probably took five or six minutes.
I have never been "curious" about what you look like. Do you often
google the photos of people on Usenet? I find that very "curious".
>
> > Why, did you feel it necessary to reply to Badland's Sixties
> > stereotype at all. I thought he was trying to be funny, and didn't
> > take it seriously at all...and I was the object of the supposed
> > derision. So, why did you feel the need to "argue fairly". Is
> > everything on Usenet an argument opportunity for you. If it is, why
> > don't you argue with your neighbor or a friend, and give all of us a
> > break.
>
> > prediction: you will evade a direct answer on the above.
>
> I can't believe you're actually trying to grind an ox(sic) over me *defending
> your appearance*. Again...what more needs to be said?
>
> Are you really such a complete idiot that you've convinced yourself that
> you have me pinned to the wall, fumbling for an answer about why I
> *debate fairly*? Are you really this moronic?
The fact that you can defend yourself only by asking questions is
quite revealing.
>
marcus
> "poisoned rose" <prose1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:prose1235-ED07C...@nothing.attdns.com...
>
> > poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> I can't believe you're actually trying to grind an ox
>
> > Ha. Terrible typo.
>
> If nothing else, it makes for a great mental image.
Probably a mental slip from having defended the "Yoko" in RMB for all
these years.
marcus
> marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > You are being evasive, instead of explaining why you felt a need to
> > > > look for my photo, you are stalling by addressing clipping text. You
> > > > still haven't explained yourself.
>
> > > > evade evade evade (where have I heard that before?)
>
> > > There is no need to "evade." I looked up your picture because I was
> > > curious. What more needs to be said? And I did it quite awhile ago. It
> > > probably took five or six minutes.
>
> > I have never been "curious" about what you look like. Do you often
> > google the photos of people on Usenet? I find that very "curious".
>
> pokes into quarrels, resulting from such research. And you know exactly
> what I mean.
The only thing I can think of is trying to look up your past posts,
which is difficult since you don't allow your posts to be archived.
Other than that...no, I don't know what you mean.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Why, did you feel it necessary to reply to Badland's Sixties
> > > > stereotype at all. I thought he was trying to be funny, and didn't
> > > > take it seriously at all...and I was the object of the supposed
> > > > derision. So, why did you feel the need to "argue fairly". Is
> > > > everything on Usenet an argument opportunity for you. If it is, why
> > > > don't you argue with your neighbor or a friend, and give all of us a
> > > > break.
>
> > > > prediction: you will evade a direct answer on the above.
>
> > > I can't believe you're actually trying to grind an ox(sic) over me
> > > *defending
> > > your appearance*. Again...what more needs to be said?
>
> > > Are you really such a complete idiot that you've convinced yourself that
> > > you have me pinned to the wall, fumbling for an answer about why I
> > > *debate fairly*? Are you really this moronic?
>
> > The fact that you can defend yourself only by asking questions is
> > quite revealing.
>
> If I apologize for defending you, will that help?-
If you would just mind your own business...that would help
marcus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still won't admit that you stalked...I shouldn't have expected you to
be honest.
badlands420
>Still won't admit that you stalked
You haven't shown any evidence that he did. Announcing something over and
over again does not make it so.
Martin
> Announcing something over and
> over again does not make it so
This thread is really interesting
This thread is really interesting
This thread is really interesting
This thread is really interesting
This thread is really interesting
This thread is really interesting
marcus
> still so, so upset because I defended you against having your appearance
> attacked.
That's your spin on it. You've followed me around from newsgroup to
newsgroup(even one that I never had seen a post by you previously,
although you claim now that you had posted in it before(, often
weighing in with your two cents of scold in a thread you hadn't
appeared in earlier, and then you search the internet for photos of me
because you were "curious".
Stalker are always just "curious".
Meanwhile I know you live in California because it was discussed in
posts in rec.music.beatles, and somehow you are alarmed that I know
that general information. It's not like I know your address, or which
city you live in....because I don't...although I am guessing you are
in Southern CA based on reports of events and concerts you've
attended.
>
> Your idea of a "stalker" is pretty much anyone who shows a pattern of
> being miraculously offended by your pompous, self-congratulatory swill.
No, a stalker, on the internet, is someone who takes an overt interest
in knowing about your private life, and finds, surreptitiously, ways
to get information.
marcus
For Christ's sake, birdbrain, he admitted it.
marcus
>
> > > Your idea of a "stalker" is pretty much anyone who shows a pattern of
> > > being miraculously offended by your pompous, self-congratulatory swill.
>
> > No, a stalker, on the internet, is someone who takes an overt interest
> > in knowing about your private life, and finds, surreptitiously, ways
> > to get information.
>
> by...defending your appearance from an unjust attack?
>
Years ago, there was a news story about a burglar caught red-handed at
a home. As he was carted away in the police car, he turned to the
owner, then standing in the drive-way, and said, "Hey, at least I
cleaned up your kitchen."
marcus
> silly, inflated nonsense.
>
> What's funny is that you didn't even fret about this issue, initially.
> TWO MONTHS AGO! About all you did in reply was chide my "Albert Brooks'
> older brother" description because Brooks is actually older than you.
> But now you suddenly feign that it's some incredible sin, because the
> ruse serves as a good way to deflect attention off dumb and/or pompous
> points you made and turn back to smearing my character. Such a fraud.
> Such a disgraceful fraud.
Just because I didn't state my alarm at you invading my privacy back
then doesn't mean I wasn't bothered by it then.
>
> See if you can find anyone else who gives a f*ck. Look high and low....
Gee, Eric, that's about as close as you've ever been to swearing on
Usenet.
Watch out, you might sully your blue-nosed image.
>
> Go back to sleep, you sad, broken man.
You talk about me using words and phrases over and over again, and yet
you've been unbelievably repetitious with your "go back to sleep",
"why did you ever wake up from your coma" lines over the past week.
Come on, Mr. Valedictorian, certainly you can come up with something
more clever.
rwalker
wrote:
snip
>
>
>You talk about me using words and phrases over and over again, and yet
>you've been unbelievably repetitious with your "go back to sleep",
>"why did you ever wake up from your coma" lines over the past week.
>
>Come on, Mr. Valedictorian, certainly you can come up with something
>more clever.
>
Nah, he's a one-trick pony.