Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Der Spiegel: JTEM is right and Giwer is an ass clown!
12 views
Skip to first unread message
JTEM
Apr 15, 2012, 2:20:47 AM4/15/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
I'm sure you think I'm kidding, but in big bold
headlines the German publication Der
Spiegel pronounced JTEM triumphant and
Giwer an ignorant ass-clown.
Well, okay, they didn't use those exact words.
Not exactly.
What they said was:
: The Jews had significant competition in antiquity
: when it came to worshipping Yahweh.
: Archeologists have discovered a second great
: temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its
: better known cousin. It belonged to the
: Samaritans, and may have been edited out of
: the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,827144,00.html
Need I remind everyone that this is the scenario
that I have been arguing for quite some time?
Hmm?
Well, need I?
headlines the German publication Der
Spiegel pronounced JTEM triumphant and
Giwer an ignorant ass-clown.
Well, okay, they didn't use those exact words.
Not exactly.
What they said was:
: The Jews had significant competition in antiquity
: when it came to worshipping Yahweh.
: Archeologists have discovered a second great
: temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its
: better known cousin. It belonged to the
: Samaritans, and may have been edited out of
: the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,827144,00.html
Need I remind everyone that this is the scenario
that I have been arguing for quite some time?
Hmm?
Well, need I?
hielan' laddie
Apr 15, 2012, 7:39:17 AM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 02:20:47 -0400, JTEM wrote
(in article
<6a3c27ac-9fae-4835...@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):
Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high that
they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
(in article
<6a3c27ac-9fae-4835...@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>):
says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high that
they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
JTEM
Apr 15, 2012, 9:36:08 PM4/15/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
DISCLAIMER:
Although it was always clear that a
literally true bible was out of the
question -- and even that all the
"Evidence" for historical people and
events is pure wishful thinking -- I
never had too much interest in building
an alternative picture. I simply (and
rather lazily) accepted a popular
alternative view, and went along my
merry way. It was Giwer, ironically
enough, with his postings and crazy
theories that drew me into the topic,
and it was Giwer who presented me
(through one of his cites) with what
seemed like the obvious answer.
That answer? Well, as Der Spiegel
put it:
: The Jews had significant competition in antiquity
: when it came to worshipping Yahweh.
: Archeologists have discovered a second great
: temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its
: better known cousin. It belonged to the
: Samaritans, and may have been edited out of
: the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,827144,00.html
But Der Spiegel got it wrong. In part. Or,
at least the way I see it they got it wrong.
Here. Check this out:
: Starting in the year 732 BC, the Assyrians
: used their chariots to advance to the
: Mediterranean and subjugate the state of
: Israel. The inhabitants were either impaled
: or taken into captivity.
Nope, never happened. There was no "Israel"
in 732 BC(E) to subjugate. It goes on:
: Only a few years after the invasion,
: King Hezekiah persuaded all Israelites
: -- Jews and Samaritans alike -- to make
: a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He said this
: was the only place that still retained
: the freedom and purity to worship the
: Almighty.
Now I'll tell you how we all know this is
pure rubbish: The Samaritan temple wasn't
built until long after the Assyrians, not
until the 5th century BC(E). So how could
there be some cultural split and re-writing
of the bible, when the temple at the heart
of the split was still centuries away?
What really pisses me off is that the good
folks at Der Spiegel know this. It's
impossible that they could do a story on
the Samaritan temple, the archaeological
dig surrounding it, and not hit on it's
age. It's just that there's some kind of
rule out there, something that says the
mainstream media can't burst anyone's
religious bubble. They always have to say
SOMETHING that reassures the public that
their bible, if not literally true, is at
least mostly true -- based on real events.
Although it was always clear that a
literally true bible was out of the
question -- and even that all the
"Evidence" for historical people and
events is pure wishful thinking -- I
never had too much interest in building
an alternative picture. I simply (and
rather lazily) accepted a popular
alternative view, and went along my
merry way. It was Giwer, ironically
enough, with his postings and crazy
theories that drew me into the topic,
and it was Giwer who presented me
(through one of his cites) with what
seemed like the obvious answer.
That answer? Well, as Der Spiegel
put it:
: The Jews had significant competition in antiquity
: when it came to worshipping Yahweh.
: Archeologists have discovered a second great
: temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its
: better known cousin. It belonged to the
: Samaritans, and may have been edited out of
: the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,827144,00.html
at least the way I see it they got it wrong.
Here. Check this out:
: Starting in the year 732 BC, the Assyrians
: used their chariots to advance to the
: Mediterranean and subjugate the state of
: Israel. The inhabitants were either impaled
: or taken into captivity.
Nope, never happened. There was no "Israel"
in 732 BC(E) to subjugate. It goes on:
: Only a few years after the invasion,
: King Hezekiah persuaded all Israelites
: -- Jews and Samaritans alike -- to make
: a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He said this
: was the only place that still retained
: the freedom and purity to worship the
: Almighty.
Now I'll tell you how we all know this is
pure rubbish: The Samaritan temple wasn't
built until long after the Assyrians, not
until the 5th century BC(E). So how could
there be some cultural split and re-writing
of the bible, when the temple at the heart
of the split was still centuries away?
What really pisses me off is that the good
folks at Der Spiegel know this. It's
impossible that they could do a story on
the Samaritan temple, the archaeological
dig surrounding it, and not hit on it's
age. It's just that there's some kind of
rule out there, something that says the
mainstream media can't burst anyone's
religious bubble. They always have to say
SOMETHING that reassures the public that
their bible, if not literally true, is at
least mostly true -- based on real events.
Matt Giwer
Apr 15, 2012, 11:40:42 PM4/15/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
its destruction.
Yet the lead to the story declares it was DISCOVERED!
What kind of an idiot would cite an article that only a low life
journalism major could produce? Your kind obviously.
Matt Giwer
Apr 15, 2012, 11:42:02 PM4/15/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
discovered?
JTEM
Apr 16, 2012, 1:40:11 AM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> What kind of raving, retarded mongoloid idiot would claim this was
> discovered?
Like I said, the irony here is that Giwer
> What kind of raving, retarded mongoloid idiot would claim this was
> discovered?
pointed me to all this in the first place.
He not only got me looking at the topic
(so I could respond to his crazy ideas),
but posted a number of cites which educated
me on this!
Yes, Giwer is arguing against the things
he established...
JTEM
Apr 16, 2012, 1:47:28 AM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> Excuse me. The this temple has NEVER been unknown. Josephus mentions
> its destruction.
The writings attributed to Josephus give it
> >
> Excuse me. The this temple has NEVER been unknown. Josephus mentions
> its destruction.
the wrong age. The date it to a much more
recent times. In fact, according to Josephus
the Samaritans were asking Alexander the
Great permission to build it, and it was
already more than a century old when Alexander
was on the scene...
Funny how you cite an appallingly inaccurate
source in an attack on an inaccurate source...
"Hypocrisy."
> Yet the lead to the story declares it was DISCOVERED!
facts wrong. As I pointed out, it dates
the split/rewrite to the Assyrians, and
the Assyrians arrived on the scene centuries
before the temple at the heart of the split.
> What kind of an idiot would cite an article that only a low life
> journalism major could produce? Your kind obviously.
wade through the inaccuracies of a Josephus
to arrive at the truth, but you are completely
lost at an English-language translation of a
German news piece (NOT field report, NOT
scholarly article).
Martin Edwards
Apr 16, 2012, 3:27:22 AM4/16/12
to
On 15/04/2012 12:39, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>
>
> Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
> says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high that
> they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
>
I don't disagree, or not completely, but why do you choose a handle
>>
>
> Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
> says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high that
> they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
>
which describes you as a highlander, but in Scots?
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
Martin Edwards
Apr 16, 2012, 3:31:30 AM4/16/12
to
> What really pisses me off is that the good
> folks at Der Spiegel know this. It's
> impossible that they could do a story on
> the Samaritan temple, the archaeological
> dig surrounding it, and not hit on it's
> age. It's just that there's some kind of
> rule out there, something that says the
> mainstream media can't burst anyone's
> religious bubble. They always have to say
> SOMETHING that reassures the public that
> their bible, if not literally true, is at
> least mostly true -- based on real events.
>
>
The Spiegel gets a lot of leeway because it was founded by the son of
> folks at Der Spiegel know this. It's
> impossible that they could do a story on
> the Samaritan temple, the archaeological
> dig surrounding it, and not hit on it's
> age. It's just that there's some kind of
> rule out there, something that says the
> mainstream media can't burst anyone's
> religious bubble. They always have to say
> SOMETHING that reassures the public that
> their bible, if not literally true, is at
> least mostly true -- based on real events.
>
>
demonstrably anti-Nazi conservatives and cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism. The mélange of facts, or at least probabilities, and
myth is also common in the UK and no doubt, North America.
Martin Edwards
Apr 16, 2012, 3:33:56 AM4/16/12
to
Scott Eiler
Apr 16, 2012, 9:36:58 PM4/16/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 4/15/2012 6:36 PM, JTEM wrote:
> : Starting in the year 732 BC, the Assyrians
> : used their chariots to advance to the
> : Mediterranean and subjugate the state of
> : Israel. The inhabitants were either impaled
> : or taken into captivity.
>
> Nope, never happened. There was no "Israel"
> in 732 BC(E) to subjugate. It goes on:
You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
> : Starting in the year 732 BC, the Assyrians
> : used their chariots to advance to the
> : Mediterranean and subjugate the state of
> : Israel. The inhabitants were either impaled
> : or taken into captivity.
>
> Nope, never happened. There was no "Israel"
> in 732 BC(E) to subjugate. It goes on:
built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
> : Only a few years after the invasion,
> : King Hezekiah persuaded all Israelites
> : -- Jews and Samaritans alike -- to make
> : a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He said this
> : was the only place that still retained
> : the freedom and purity to worship the
> : Almighty.
>
> Now I'll tell you how we all know this is
> pure rubbish: The Samaritan temple wasn't
> built until long after the Assyrians, not
> until the 5th century BC(E). So how could
> there be some cultural split and re-writing
> of the bible, when the temple at the heart
> of the split was still centuries away?
had more than one temple. Why not Samaritans?
--
(signed) Scott Eiler 8{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ ---------
Let's take a look, if you will, at the Second Amendment of the
Constitution, which protects every American's right to shoot another
American. This cherished constitutional right to shoot people and make
them dead is currently recognized in all fifty states, most recently
Florida.
- The Borowitz Report
(http://www.borowitzreport.com/2012/03/29/an-argument-against-healthcare/),
March 2012.
Matt Giwer
Apr 17, 2012, 1:45:12 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
haaretz.com has reported Israel pays people like you to promote zionist
bullshit. If you are not being paid now apply for a job. If you need a
recommendation I will be happy to swear you are no dumber than the rest
of the Ha'Sbara team that supports the jewish dictatorship.
Matt Giwer
Apr 17, 2012, 1:46:20 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Matt Giwer
Apr 17, 2012, 1:59:17 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
Matt Giwer
Apr 17, 2012, 2:00:51 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
JTEM
Apr 17, 2012, 2:09:03 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
> > Like I said, the irony here is that Giwer
> > pointed me to all this in the first place.
> > He not only got me looking at the topic
> > (so I could respond to his crazy ideas),
> > but posted a number of cites which educated
> > me on this!
>
> > Yes, Giwer is arguing against the things
> > he established...
>
> Channel it, Baby!
Well, gosh, not that you've said that everythng
has changed! The past has been altered so that
you never posted your kooky theories, I never
read some of your cites and i never drew the
obvious conclusions from them (the conclusions
which, no matter how obvious, always escaped you).
you should be proud of yourself... or committed.
Now post it again, quick, so you'll be twice
as smart!
JTEM
Apr 17, 2012, 2:13:55 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Such scholarly work! It's breathtaking!
In one short sentence you've completely
reformed Josephus, done away with his
enormous string of errors even as you've
effectively accounted for the peculiar
lack of evidence which, up until now, had
always seemed to condemn your theories as
the rantings of a mad man. Congratulations.
In one short sentence you've completely
reformed Josephus, done away with his
enormous string of errors even as you've
effectively accounted for the peculiar
lack of evidence which, up until now, had
always seemed to condemn your theories as
the rantings of a mad man. Congratulations.
Lee Olsen
Apr 17, 2012, 9:09:13 AM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
http://tinyurl.com/2bclbfy
"As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."
"As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."
Scott Eiler
Apr 17, 2012, 9:46:21 PM4/17/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
JTEM
Apr 18, 2012, 11:13:36 PM4/18/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
(Note large number of exclamation points)
I kid you not (that means, "Dude, I ain't joking here"),
Matt Giwer -- the one and only Matt Giwer -- has one
hit on Google Scholar and this is it:
: The web of hate: An exploratory study of holocaust
: denial on the net
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9007
If you score a copy of the paper you'll have a little difficulty
finding Giwer. He's located within a footnote on page 38.
Yes, everybody laugh at him! I promised to interview
him, give him a chance to deliver his best argument,
and then place his interview on the web and elsewhere
where he or anyone else could access it.
He fled like a little girl. Refused to do it.
Matt Giwer: Failed Holocaust denier!
-- --
Try this. It's for real. I got $30 worth of food at a
local restaurant for $15. I honestly use this:
http://www.groupon.com/r/uu39797360
I kid you not (that means, "Dude, I ain't joking here"),
Matt Giwer -- the one and only Matt Giwer -- has one
hit on Google Scholar and this is it:
: The web of hate: An exploratory study of holocaust
: denial on the net
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9007
If you score a copy of the paper you'll have a little difficulty
finding Giwer. He's located within a footnote on page 38.
Yes, everybody laugh at him! I promised to interview
him, give him a chance to deliver his best argument,
and then place his interview on the web and elsewhere
where he or anyone else could access it.
He fled like a little girl. Refused to do it.
Matt Giwer: Failed Holocaust denier!
-- --
Try this. It's for real. I got $30 worth of food at a
local restaurant for $15. I honestly use this:
http://www.groupon.com/r/uu39797360
Matt Giwer
Apr 19, 2012, 12:23:19 PM4/19/12
to
On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
>>
>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
>
> ... Whatever.
The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
>>
>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
>
> ... Whatever.
history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
believe they are not.
Bill
Apr 19, 2012, 2:11:41 PM4/19/12
to
In article <4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
@tampabay.rr.com says...
Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
@tampabay.rr.com says...
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
JTEM
Apr 19, 2012, 5:54:22 PM4/19/12
to
Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jul...@tampabay.rr.com says...
of discussion. All he wants to do is preach. He actually invests
most of his time into trying to STOP any discussions.
For real.
It got so bad that I proposed some new rules for debate, rules
which would have actually benefited Giwer in the long run.
No dice.
For example, Giwer uses the "Physical Evidence" claim like
a club to beat people with. Post something that doesn't fit
into his narrow, overly biased world view, anything at all, and
he'll invent false dilemmas where his inappropriate demands
for "Physical Evidence" prove you wrong and him right. But,...
Giwer has no physical evidence. None. He offers no shortage
of theories -- most transparently biased -- but not a lick of
physical evidence. So he fails his own standards.
Giwer is good for one thing and one thing only: barking at
the God Squad. Anything the least bit more "Scholarly"
than that and he's an embarrassment.... a sick, neo-Nazi
wannabe with delusions of relevance.
-- --
Try this. For real. I got $30 worth of food at a
> jul...@tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> > The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
> > history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
> > believe they are not.
> Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
Doesn't matter. Giwer has never been interested in any sort
> > The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
> > history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
> > believe they are not.
> Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
of discussion. All he wants to do is preach. He actually invests
most of his time into trying to STOP any discussions.
For real.
It got so bad that I proposed some new rules for debate, rules
which would have actually benefited Giwer in the long run.
No dice.
For example, Giwer uses the "Physical Evidence" claim like
a club to beat people with. Post something that doesn't fit
into his narrow, overly biased world view, anything at all, and
he'll invent false dilemmas where his inappropriate demands
for "Physical Evidence" prove you wrong and him right. But,...
Giwer has no physical evidence. None. He offers no shortage
of theories -- most transparently biased -- but not a lick of
physical evidence. So he fails his own standards.
Giwer is good for one thing and one thing only: barking at
the God Squad. Anything the least bit more "Scholarly"
than that and he's an embarrassment.... a sick, neo-Nazi
wannabe with delusions of relevance.
-- --
Try this. For real. I got $30 worth of food at a
hielan' laddie
Apr 19, 2012, 9:31:44 PM4/19/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:27:22 -0400, Martin Edwards wrote
(in article <uRPir.29785$m91....@fx24.am4>):
> On 15/04/2012 12:39, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
>> says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high that
>> they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
>>
> I don't disagree, or not completely, but why do you choose a handle
> which describes you as a highlander, but in Scots?
>
>
I like Bobby Burns' work.
(in article <uRPir.29785$m91....@fx24.am4>):
> On 15/04/2012 12:39, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
>> says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high that
>> they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
>>
> I don't disagree, or not completely, but why do you choose a handle
> which describes you as a highlander, but in Scots?
>
>
VtSkier
Apr 19, 2012, 9:41:24 PM4/19/12
to
Ole Bobby wasn't a highlander. IIRC he didn't speak Gaelic.
Matt Giwer
Apr 19, 2012, 11:40:52 PM4/19/12
to
On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
> In article<4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>> On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
>>>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
>>>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
>>>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
>>>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
>>>
>>> ... Whatever.
>>
>> The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
>> history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
>> believe they are not.
>
> Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
> In article<4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>> On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
>>>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
>>>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
>>>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
>>>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
>>>
>>> ... Whatever.
>>
>> The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
>> history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
>> believe they are not.
>
> Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names.
Be that as it may I see no reason to excuse the malevolent, Jewish
military dictatorial tyranny over millions of non-Jews just because the
holy holocaust gave them a good use for dead relatives.
Antizionism is a moral imperative.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back.
JTEM
Apr 19, 2012, 11:56:11 PM4/19/12
to
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names.
I repeat my offer:
> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names.
1.
An interview. You make your best case, one or more others
make their best case. The finished product is made available
for viewing FOR FREE.
I would prefer just one other person myself, but I can't
guarantee something like that in advance. You've been
at the Holocaust denial thing for a long time, any "Expert"
I find may not be knowledgeable in every area. It would
really depend on you.
2.
I guarantee your safety so long as you keep your neo-Nazi, Holocaust
opinions to yourself in public. I can't control others, only myself
and
anyone involved in production. Nobody else would even know who you
are, and I would promise not to tell them, so if you can actually
avoid
the subject in public I guarantee no problems.
3. Positive I.D. and a signed waver would be required, but you can
demand a non-disclosure agreement for any personal information
what so ever, including your real name.
4.
Nobody makes any money. Not you, not me, not anyone I ask to
respond to your argument. Nobody is paid anything, not so much
as one thin dime.
5.
This is not to say that there wouldn't be "Compensation" for you.
Assuming
you want attention, there's always a chance it will find you and
audience.
6.
Due to the lack of compensation, and your potential gain of an
audience, you would have to provide your own transportation.
Go on, do it. Stop pussying out....
Bill
Apr 20, 2012, 7:26:07 AM4/20/12
to
In article <4f90dad5$0$5859$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
anti-Semite.
@tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
> > In article<4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> > @tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>
> >> On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
> >>> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
> >>>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
> >>>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
> >>>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
> >>>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
> >>>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
> >>>
> >>> ... Whatever.
> >>
> >> The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
> >> history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
> >> believe they are not.
> >
> > Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
>
> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks.
Sophistry, I expected no less from the well known Holocaust denier and
>
> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
> > In article<4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> > @tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>
> >> On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
> >>> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
> >>>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
> >>>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
> >>>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
> >>>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
> >>>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
> >>>
> >>> ... Whatever.
> >>
> >> The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
> >> history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
> >> believe they are not.
> >
> > Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
>
> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks.
anti-Semite.
Martin Edwards
Apr 20, 2012, 7:34:04 AM4/20/12
to
On 19/04/2012 19:11, Bill wrote:
> In article<4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>> On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
>>>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
>>>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
>>>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
>>>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
>>>
>>> ... Whatever.
>>
>> The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
>> history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
>> believe they are not.
>
> Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
>
He should delete this group. My posts about my tragic longing for
> In article<4f903c07$0$7526$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>> On 4/17/2012 9:46 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2012 10:59 PM, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2012 9:36 PM, Scott Eiler wrote:
>>>>> You know about the Israel / Judah split after Solomon, right? Israel
>>>>> built its own altars as soon as they could after that. They went with
>>>>> the multiple-altar approach, though; there were two primary worship
>>>>> places, but worship atop many hilltops was common.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not know Abraham and Solomon and biblical Israel are myths,
>>>> fairy tales for children, why are you posting?
>>>
>>> ... Whatever.
>>
>> The whatever is this is a newsgroup for the discussion of ancient
>> history not myths and fables regardless of the origin nor how many
>> believe they are not.
>
> Read the headers Nazi boi, it's on more than one group.
>
Beyonce are not posted to this group. Come to think about it this one was.
Martin Edwards
Apr 20, 2012, 7:38:08 AM4/20/12
to
On 20/04/2012 04:40, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names./
> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
My genitals were mutilated, as were those of many men my age in the UK,
supposedly for medical reason. The reason was that the NHS was in its
first flush of glory and was finding things to do. I am not saying that
this was okay, but I can honestly say that I remember nothing about it.
Matt Giwer
Apr 20, 2012, 2:09:28 PM4/20/12
to
On 4/20/2012 7:38 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 20/04/2012 04:40, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
>> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
>> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names./
>
> My genitals were mutilated, as were those of many men my age in the UK,
> supposedly for medical reason. The reason was that the NHS was in its
> first flush of glory and was finding things to do. I am not saying that
> this was okay, but I can honestly say that I remember nothing about it.
It was done in a religious ritual before there was even an elementary
> On 20/04/2012 04:40, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
>> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
>> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names./
>
> My genitals were mutilated, as were those of many men my age in the UK,
> supposedly for medical reason. The reason was that the NHS was in its
> first flush of glory and was finding things to do. I am not saying that
> this was okay, but I can honestly say that I remember nothing about it.
concept of germs and sanitation?
hielan' laddie
Apr 20, 2012, 3:09:19 PM4/20/12
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:41:24 -0400, VtSkier wrote
(in article <13348861...@deathstar.vermontel.net>):
I know. However, see, just for example, 'Bannockburn'.
(in article <13348861...@deathstar.vermontel.net>):
JTEM
Apr 20, 2012, 3:14:44 PM4/20/12
to
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> My genitals were mutilated,
You mean you have undergone "Penis Improvement
Surgery."
> My genitals were mutilated,
You mean you have undergone "Penis Improvement
Surgery."
VtSkier
Apr 20, 2012, 4:23:17 PM4/20/12
to
to see? Robert certainly had highlanders in his army but neither he nor
his commanders were highlanders. The feudal system imported from the
continent was far to entrenched and the highlanders were pretty much
resistant to its demands. But they would fight.
Odysseus
Apr 21, 2012, 4:32:04 AM4/21/12
to
In article <jmqea...@news6.newsguy.com>,
hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:
<snip>
> I like Bobby Burns' work.
It's a fine pipe tune too.
--
Odysseus
hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:
<snip>
> I like Bobby Burns' work.
--
Odysseus
Martin Edwards
Apr 21, 2012, 6:03:31 AM4/21/12
to
Martin Edwards
Apr 21, 2012, 6:04:21 AM4/21/12
to
what it was like before.
Martin Edwards
Apr 21, 2012, 6:06:17 AM4/21/12
to
On 20/04/2012 20:09, hielan' laddie wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:41:24 -0400, VtSkier wrote
> (in article<13348861...@deathstar.vermontel.net>):
>
>> On 4/19/2012 9:31 PM, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:27:22 -0400, Martin Edwards wrote
>>> (in article<uRPir.29785$m91....@fx24.am4>):
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2012 12:39, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
>>>>> says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high
>>>>> that
>>>>> they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't disagree, or not completely, but why do you choose a handle
>>>> which describes you as a highlander, but in Scots?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>gl
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:41:24 -0400, VtSkier wrote
> (in article<13348861...@deathstar.vermontel.net>):
>
>> On 4/19/2012 9:31 PM, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:27:22 -0400, Martin Edwards wrote
>>> (in article<uRPir.29785$m91....@fx24.am4>):
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2012 12:39, hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Giwer has always been an ass clown, for many reasons. If just about anyone
>>>>> says something with which Giwer disagrees, the odds are incredibly high
>>>>> that
>>>>> they're right and Giwer is wrong. He's reliable that way.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't disagree, or not completely, but why do you choose a handle
>>>> which describes you as a highlander, but in Scots?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I like Bobby Burns' work.
>>>
>>
>> yahbut...
>> Ole Bobby wasn't a highlander. IIRC he didn't speak Gaelic.
>
>
> I know. However, see, just for example, 'Bannockburn'.
>
Most of his works were in English. Only the funny ones, such as the
>>>
>>
>> yahbut...
>> Ole Bobby wasn't a highlander. IIRC he didn't speak Gaelic.
>
>
> I know. However, see, just for example, 'Bannockburn'.
>
hymn to the Haggis, were in Scots.
Martin Edwards
Apr 21, 2012, 6:17:52 AM4/21/12
to
On 20/04/2012 21:23, VtSkier wrote:
>
> So I googled and I'm familiar with the battle. What else was I supposed
> to see? Robert certainly had highlanders in his army but neither he nor
> his commanders were highlanders. The feudal system imported from the
> continent was far to entrenched and the highlanders were pretty much
> resistant to its demands. But they would fight.
>
>
>
He was a Norman knight with holdings in both countries, which was quit
>
> So I googled and I'm familiar with the battle. What else was I supposed
> to see? Robert certainly had highlanders in his army but neither he nor
> his commanders were highlanders. The feudal system imported from the
> continent was far to entrenched and the highlanders were pretty much
> resistant to its demands. But they would fight.
>
>
>
common at the time. Some of the finance for his campaign came from
revenues from his estates in, of all places, Surrey.
Matt Giwer
Apr 21, 2012, 12:20:44 PM4/21/12
to
On 4/21/2012 6:03 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 20/04/2012 19:09, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 7:38 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2012 04:40, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
>>>> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
>>>> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names./
>>>
>>> My genitals were mutilated, as were those of many men my age in the UK,
>>> supposedly for medical reason. The reason was that the NHS was in its
>>> first flush of glory and was finding things to do. I am not saying that
>>> this was okay, but I can honestly say that I remember nothing about it.
>>
>> It was done in a religious ritual before there was even an elementary
>> concept of germs and sanitation?
>>
> I certainly hope not.
And the followup questions are, if it were declared in illegal
> On 20/04/2012 19:09, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 7:38 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2012 04:40, Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2012 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> None of the newsgroups admit political fable written by Greeks. Perhaps
>>>> you Jews love ritual mutilation of the genitalia of infants but such
>>>> depraved behavior does not warrant ignorant children to call names./
>>>
>>> My genitals were mutilated, as were those of many men my age in the UK,
>>> supposedly for medical reason. The reason was that the NHS was in its
>>> first flush of glory and was finding things to do. I am not saying that
>>> this was okay, but I can honestly say that I remember nothing about it.
>>
>> It was done in a religious ritual before there was even an elementary
>> concept of germs and sanitation?
>>
> I certainly hope not.
procedure would you rise up in revolt against the government which
outlawed it?
And because you had the procedure do you agree to pay the temple tax to
any temple tax collector who finds you any place in the world?
JTEM
Apr 21, 2012, 5:26:26 PM4/21/12
to
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I have no way of knowing if it was an improvement as I do not remember
> what it was like before.
Before, it looked like the last chicken hanging in
> I have no way of knowing if it was an improvement as I do not remember
> what it was like before.
the shop.
Before, it was known for incubating prodigious quantities
of cheese.
Before, you could cover the over-hang with glue and use
it to catch flies.
So, yes, it's an improvement.
The only down side is the size perception. Where yours
end the unimproved have the danglely piece extending
further, Which makes it look longer. And so what if the
extra skin looks & smells as if it came from a warty Tom
Turkey particularly unschooled in personal hygiene?
A "Longer Dick" is all most guys will see....
Martin Edwards
Apr 23, 2012, 2:30:56 AM4/23/12
to
a Jew: it's on my Dad's side.
Martin Edwards
Apr 23, 2012, 2:31:51 AM4/23/12
to
On 21/04/2012 22:26, JTEM wrote:
> Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have no way of knowing if it was an improvement as I do not remember
>> what it was like before.
>
> Before, it looked like the last chicken hanging in
> the shop.
>
> Before, it was known for incubating prodigious quantities
> of cheese.
>
> Before, you could cover the over-hang with glue and use
> it to catch flies.
>
> So, yes, it's an improvement.
>
> The only down side is the size perception. Where yours
> end the unimproved have the danglely piece extending
> further, Which makes it look longer. And so what if the
> extra skin looks& smells as if it came from a warty Tom
> Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have no way of knowing if it was an improvement as I do not remember
>> what it was like before.
>
> Before, it looked like the last chicken hanging in
> the shop.
>
> Before, it was known for incubating prodigious quantities
> of cheese.
>
> Before, you could cover the over-hang with glue and use
> it to catch flies.
>
> So, yes, it's an improvement.
>
> The only down side is the size perception. Where yours
> end the unimproved have the danglely piece extending
> further, Which makes it look longer. And so what if the
> Turkey particularly unschooled in personal hygiene?
> A "Longer Dick" is all most guys will see....
>
>
>
>
I'm not sure that was true at the time: I was only a few days old.
> A "Longer Dick" is all most guys will see....
>
>
>
>
JTEM
Apr 23, 2012, 9:13:05 AM4/23/12
to
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> As has been noted here (and elsewhere on the net) over and
> over again for many years, Giwer is a rather notorious holocaust
> denier and major anti-semite.
Really? I hadn't heard. He's kept it a secret over in this group.
> He's allowed to have those opinions.
Really? Who granted the permission, and why?
> What he is not allowed to do is to represent himself as open
> and unbiased on these issues.
As it turns out, he can & does anything he pleases, including
misrepresenting himself as open & unbiased, and repeating
disinformation.
> As has been noted here (and elsewhere on the net) over and
> over again for many years, Giwer is a rather notorious holocaust
> denier and major anti-semite.
Really? I hadn't heard. He's kept it a secret over in this group.
> He's allowed to have those opinions.
Really? Who granted the permission, and why?
> What he is not allowed to do is to represent himself as open
> and unbiased on these issues.
As it turns out, he can & does anything he pleases, including
misrepresenting himself as open & unbiased, and repeating
disinformation.
Matt Giwer
Apr 23, 2012, 11:18:57 PM4/23/12
to
mutilation.
Matt Giwer
Apr 23, 2012, 11:21:40 PM4/23/12
to
On 4/21/2012 5:26 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have no way of knowing if it was an improvement as I do not remember
>> what it was like before.
>
> Before, it looked like the last chicken hanging in
> the shop.
>
> Before, it was known for incubating prodigious quantities
> of cheese.
>
> Before, you could cover the over-hang with glue and use
> it to catch flies.
>
> So, yes, it's an improvement.
>
> The only down side is the size perception. Where yours
> end the unimproved have the danglely piece extending
> further, Which makes it look longer. And so what if the
> extra skin looks& smells as if it came from a warty Tom
> Martin Edwards<big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have no way of knowing if it was an improvement as I do not remember
>> what it was like before.
>
> Before, it looked like the last chicken hanging in
> the shop.
>
> Before, it was known for incubating prodigious quantities
> of cheese.
>
> Before, you could cover the over-hang with glue and use
> it to catch flies.
>
> So, yes, it's an improvement.
>
> The only down side is the size perception. Where yours
> end the unimproved have the danglely piece extending
> further, Which makes it look longer. And so what if the
> Turkey particularly unschooled in personal hygiene?
> A "Longer Dick" is all most guys will see....
That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
> A "Longer Dick" is all most guys will see....
they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
and the girls believe it.
Poetic Justice
Apr 23, 2012, 11:55:16 PM4/23/12
to
>I repeat, it was not for religion, but
>(supposedly) for health. I'm not a Jew: it's
>on my Dad's side.
Matt Giwer wrote;
>(supposedly) for health. I'm not a Jew: it's
>on my Dad's side.
>And I am continuing to demonstrate why I
>called it ritual genital mutilation.
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of
heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."
www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
..And Paradise Was Lost...like teardrops in the rain...
Bill
Apr 24, 2012, 3:14:22 AM4/24/12
to
In article <4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
@tampabay.rr.com says...
Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
@tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
> and the girls believe it.
Now that statement is very telling...
> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
> and the girls believe it.
Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
Martin Edwards
Apr 24, 2012, 3:29:45 AM4/24/12
to
Matt Giwer
Apr 24, 2012, 10:03:38 AM4/24/12
to
On 4/23/2012 11:55 PM, Poetic Justice wrote:
>> I repeat, it was not for religion, but
>> (supposedly) for health. I'm not a Jew: it's
>> on my Dad's side.
> Matt Giwer wrote;
>> And I am continuing to demonstrate why I
>> called it ritual genital mutilation.
> One *modern day* health example;
> "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of
> heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."
> www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
>
> ...And Paradise Was Lost...like teardrops in the rain...
>> I repeat, it was not for religion, but
>> (supposedly) for health. I'm not a Jew: it's
>> on my Dad's side.
> Matt Giwer wrote;
>> And I am continuing to demonstrate why I
>> called it ritual genital mutilation.
> One *modern day* health example;
> "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of
> heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."
> www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
>
How does any modern claim reflect upon the religious rituals of people
who did not have the slightest idea of the cause of disease?
Matt Giwer
Apr 24, 2012, 10:07:14 AM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Bill wrote:
> In article<4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
>> and the girls believe it.
> Now that statement is very telling...
Is knowing something of jewish culture surprising to you?
> In article<4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
>> and the girls believe it.
> Now that statement is very telling...
> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
Neil H.
Apr 24, 2012, 1:21:00 PM4/24/12
to
In article <MPG.2a006328a...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Neil.
Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
>> and the girls believe it.
> Now that statement is very telling...
>
> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
DEAD girls turned Giwer down! :)
> In article <4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
>> and the girls believe it.
> Now that statement is very telling...
>
> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
Neil.
Bill
Apr 24, 2012, 1:48:31 PM4/24/12
to
In article <4f96b396$0$9696$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
@tampabay.rr.com says...
Yes...
Thought so...
@tampabay.rr.com says...
Thought so...
Poetic Justice
Apr 24, 2012, 9:26:51 PM4/24/12
to
Matt Giwer wrote;
>How does any modern claim reflect upon
>the religious rituals of people who did not
>have the slightest idea of the cause of
>disease?
How does *your* ancient claim reflect upon your 3 responses to Martin
Edwards' decades old circumcision?
Of course it's a waste of time but do you think *it might be possible*
that the *visible* (see below) effects of a disease later lead to the
ritual of circumcision in cultures 1000's of years apart and cultures
that would not come in contact with another culture for 1000's of years
(post 1492AD)?
Or did they all just for the fuck of it decide;
Hey, let's cut this part of our penis off?
Balanitis (I snipped modern medical treatments or tests that weren't
available in the ancient World)
Balanitis is swelling (inflammation) of the foreskin and head of the
penis.
Causes;
Balanitis is usually caused by poor hygiene in uncircumcised men.
Symptoms; (VISIBLE)
Redness of foreskin or penis
Other rashes on the head of the penis
Foul-smelling discharge
Painful penis and foreskin
Treatment;
In severe cases, circumcision may be the best option.
If you cannot pull back (retract) the foreskin to clean it, you may
need to be circumcised.
Outlook (Prognosis) (MODERN)
Most cases of balanitis can be controlled with medicated creams and good
hygiene. ***Surgery is not usually needed***.
Possible Complications;
Long-term inflammation or infection can:
Scar and narrow the opening of the penis (meatal stricture)
Make it difficult and painful to retract the foreskin to expose the tip
of the penis (a condition called phimosis)
Make it difficult to move the foreskin over the head of the penis (a
condition called paraphimosis)
Affect the blood supply to the tip of the penis.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There is evidence to suggest that hygiene may be another reason for
circumcision. This appears to be the case for elite classes in ancient
Egypt and the Aztec peoples [Remondino, 1891]. It has, moreover, been
suggested that the practise of circumcision by indigenous populations in
the hot, dry, sandy environments of the deserts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Mexico, the Kalahari and central Australia may have been a practical
solution to the fact that sand would readily get under the foreskin and
set up BALANITIS, which could lead to urethritis, cystitis, nephritis
and DEATH [Short, 2006].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The tribe on the Palatine & Capitoline Hill pre and post the 753BC
founding of Rome knew they couldn't go down to where the Roman Forum Sq.
is today from pre-dusk to post-dawn, it was a marsh then.
Yet they buried their dead there and very possibly build wooden post,
stick & reed temple(s) in heat of the midday sun.
"religious rituals of people who did not
have the slightest idea of the cause of
disease?"
They knew nothing about Malaria and its carrier mosquitoes, yet they
figured out the cause & effect of the location's timeframe.
>How does any modern claim reflect upon
>the religious rituals of people who did not
>have the slightest idea of the cause of
>disease?
Edwards' decades old circumcision?
Of course it's a waste of time but do you think *it might be possible*
that the *visible* (see below) effects of a disease later lead to the
ritual of circumcision in cultures 1000's of years apart and cultures
that would not come in contact with another culture for 1000's of years
(post 1492AD)?
Or did they all just for the fuck of it decide;
Hey, let's cut this part of our penis off?
Balanitis (I snipped modern medical treatments or tests that weren't
available in the ancient World)
Balanitis is swelling (inflammation) of the foreskin and head of the
penis.
Causes;
Balanitis is usually caused by poor hygiene in uncircumcised men.
Symptoms; (VISIBLE)
Redness of foreskin or penis
Other rashes on the head of the penis
Foul-smelling discharge
Painful penis and foreskin
Treatment;
In severe cases, circumcision may be the best option.
If you cannot pull back (retract) the foreskin to clean it, you may
need to be circumcised.
Outlook (Prognosis) (MODERN)
Most cases of balanitis can be controlled with medicated creams and good
hygiene. ***Surgery is not usually needed***.
Possible Complications;
Long-term inflammation or infection can:
Scar and narrow the opening of the penis (meatal stricture)
Make it difficult and painful to retract the foreskin to expose the tip
of the penis (a condition called phimosis)
Make it difficult to move the foreskin over the head of the penis (a
condition called paraphimosis)
Affect the blood supply to the tip of the penis.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There is evidence to suggest that hygiene may be another reason for
circumcision. This appears to be the case for elite classes in ancient
Egypt and the Aztec peoples [Remondino, 1891]. It has, moreover, been
suggested that the practise of circumcision by indigenous populations in
the hot, dry, sandy environments of the deserts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Mexico, the Kalahari and central Australia may have been a practical
solution to the fact that sand would readily get under the foreskin and
set up BALANITIS, which could lead to urethritis, cystitis, nephritis
and DEATH [Short, 2006].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The tribe on the Palatine & Capitoline Hill pre and post the 753BC
founding of Rome knew they couldn't go down to where the Roman Forum Sq.
is today from pre-dusk to post-dawn, it was a marsh then.
Yet they buried their dead there and very possibly build wooden post,
stick & reed temple(s) in heat of the midday sun.
"religious rituals of people who did not
have the slightest idea of the cause of
disease?"
figured out the cause & effect of the location's timeframe.
Matt Giwer
Apr 24, 2012, 10:14:00 PM4/24/12
to
> founding of Rome knew they couldn't go down to where the Roman Forum Sq.
> is today from pre-dusk to post-dawn, it was a marsh then.
>
> Yet they buried their dead there and very possibly build wooden post,
> stick& reed temple(s) in heat of the midday sun.
> is today from pre-dusk to post-dawn, it was a marsh then.
>
> Yet they buried their dead there and very possibly build wooden post,
>
> "religious rituals of people who did not
> have the slightest idea of the cause of
> disease?"
>
> They knew nothing about Malaria and its carrier mosquitoes, yet they
> figured out the cause& effect of the location's timeframe.
> "religious rituals of people who did not
> have the slightest idea of the cause of
> disease?"
>
> They knew nothing about Malaria and its carrier mosquitoes, yet they
1) The instances of these diseases are based upon modern statistical
studies and barely rise above significance. It is not credible it could
have been recognized before modern times when a knowledge of the cause
of disease is known. Compared serious STDs a bit of reddening is hardly
above the noise. (They still rot off a lot but at least we have licked
the redness.)
In comparison we have
2) The procedure was carried out before there was any knowledge of the
cause of disease, before sterilization, with an unsanitized stone knife
in non-sterile, that is, septic conditions. Meaning it was essentially
impossible to avoid a large fraction of immediately appearing massive
infections as a direct consequence of the barbaric procedure. It appears
the only possible way to avoid the loss of most of the infant population
was the practice of sucking the penis after the procedure to draw out
blood and clear most of but not all the infectious bacteria.
3) To have noticed an adult health benefit back then would have required
comparison of circumcised and non-circumcised populations and the
ability to diagnostically separate a few diseases from the vast majority
of sexually transmitted diseases and those from other causes. You will
note diagnostics was developed around the turn of the 20th c. of course
that is AD. It could not have been noticed in a single population
without generations of pre and post circumcision records.
Would you please restate your position in light of those three facts
such that you make the impossible appear credible? Thank you for your
time. Keep in mind there were Judeans in Palestine in the mid 5th c. BC
and no one practicing circumcision that could have been them. Any notice
of benefit has to have occurred between then and the mid 2nd c. BC. For
the first three centuries of that time the best was the men sharing
their STDs via their sheep.
Matt Giwer
Apr 24, 2012, 10:15:33 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> In article<4f96b396$0$9696$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> In article<4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
>>> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
>>>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
>>>> and the girls believe it.
>>
>>> Now that statement is very telling...
>>
>> Is knowing something of jewish culture surprising to you?
>>
>>> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
>>
>> I thought they were myths.
>
> Yes...
>
> Thought so...
Is it my fault I believe Sarah Silverman about jewish girls? Are you
> In article<4f96b396$0$9696$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Bill wrote:
>>> In article<4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
>>> @tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
>>>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
>>>> and the girls believe it.
>>
>>> Now that statement is very telling...
>>
>> Is knowing something of jewish culture surprising to you?
>>
>>> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
>>
>> I thought they were myths.
>
> Yes...
>
> Thought so...
saying she doesn't know what she is talking about?
Matt Giwer
Apr 24, 2012, 10:16:52 PM4/24/12
to
Poetic Justice
Apr 24, 2012, 11:43:27 PM4/24/12
to
Matt Giwer wrote;
[]
Not a single response to the actual points in my post just your usual
BS.
In the past I have spent days asking you for a *simple cite* to back up
your claims and just received your typical BS non-answers or URLs that
provide nothing except to prolong a never forthcoming trueful answer.
Those days are gone, honestly you are exactly like a hardcore
Creationist when it comes to actually responding to a direct question.
As to who you really are, you should take that as a compliment.
Perhaps I'm wrong and someone in these 4 crossposted NG's will agree
with you.
[]
Not a single response to the actual points in my post just your usual
BS.
In the past I have spent days asking you for a *simple cite* to back up
your claims and just received your typical BS non-answers or URLs that
provide nothing except to prolong a never forthcoming trueful answer.
Those days are gone, honestly you are exactly like a hardcore
Creationist when it comes to actually responding to a direct question.
As to who you really are, you should take that as a compliment.
Perhaps I'm wrong and someone in these 4 crossposted NG's will agree
with you.
Martin Edwards
Apr 25, 2012, 2:37:58 AM4/25/12
to
On 25/04/2012 02:26, Poetic Justice wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote;
>
> Matt Giwer wrote;
>
> They knew nothing about Malaria and its carrier mosquitoes, yet they
> figured out the cause& effect of the location's timeframe.
>
There is a parallel in the later Roman civilization which recognized the
importance of cleanliness for health, while knowing nothing of germs.
The rich even paid for free days at the baths for the poor. They were
not particularly solicitous of the proles, but of course if too many
died there would be nobody to do the work.
Matt Giwer
Apr 25, 2012, 5:07:16 AM4/25/12
to
On 4/25/2012 2:37 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 25/04/2012 02:26, Poetic Justice wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote;
>>
>> They knew nothing about Malaria and its carrier mosquitoes, yet they
>> figured out the cause& effect of the location's timeframe.
>>
> There is a parallel in the later Roman civilization which recognized the
> importance of cleanliness for health, while knowing nothing of germs.
> The rich even paid for free days at the baths for the poor. They were
> not particularly solicitous of the proles, but of course if too many
> died there would be nobody to do the work.
Clearly something unknown to the Judeans as the Mikvahs are in standing
> On 25/04/2012 02:26, Poetic Justice wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote;
>>
>> They knew nothing about Malaria and its carrier mosquitoes, yet they
>> figured out the cause& effect of the location's timeframe.
>>
> There is a parallel in the later Roman civilization which recognized the
> importance of cleanliness for health, while knowing nothing of germs.
> The rich even paid for free days at the baths for the poor. They were
> not particularly solicitous of the proles, but of course if too many
> died there would be nobody to do the work.
water so diseases can be shared with the entire community.
Matt Giwer
Apr 25, 2012, 5:08:37 AM4/25/12
to
until you finish grade school hygiene lessons.
Bill
Apr 25, 2012, 7:50:54 AM4/25/12
to
In article <4f975e4b$0$15851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
stabbing.
@tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On 4/24/2012 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> > In article<4f96b396$0$9696$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> > @tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>
> >> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Bill wrote:
> >>> In article<4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> >>> @tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
> >>>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
> >>>> and the girls believe it.
> >>
> >>> Now that statement is very telling...
> >>
> >> Is knowing something of jewish culture surprising to you?
> >>
> >>> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
> >>
> >> I thought they were myths.
> >
> > Yes...
> >
> > Thought so...
>
> Is it my fault
It's always your fault Matt, you're an evil little shit who needs
>
> On 4/24/2012 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> > In article<4f96b396$0$9696$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> > @tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>
> >> On 4/24/2012 3:14 AM, Bill wrote:
> >>> In article<4f961c48$0$30482$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, jull43
> >>> @tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>>> That only applies to men who cannot have erections. It is also what
> >>>> they tell jewish girls to turn them off from the idea of goyim boys. You
> >>>> and the girls believe it.
> >>
> >>> Now that statement is very telling...
> >>
> >> Is knowing something of jewish culture surprising to you?
> >>
> >>> Nice Jewish girl turned you down then Matt?
> >>
> >> I thought they were myths.
> >
> > Yes...
> >
> > Thought so...
>
> Is it my fault
stabbing.
Neil H.
Apr 25, 2012, 1:34:50 PM4/25/12
to
In article <4f975e9a$0$15851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Neil.
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 1:21 PM, Neil H. wrote:
>> DEAD girls turned Giwer down! :)
> On 4/24/2012 1:21 PM, Neil H. wrote:
>> DEAD girls turned Giwer down! :)
> You mean the ones that drop their nail files while having orgasms?
What would you know about orgasms, Giwer?
Neil.
Bradipus
Apr 25, 2012, 3:01:48 PM4/25/12
to
Matt Giwer, 04:14, mercoledě 25 aprile 2012:
I remember years ago I watched a documentary in which a people
in Kenya or Tanzania practized circumcision not on babies just
after birth but on children when they grow and become young
boys. Their "priests" used a herbal patch on the part to stop
bleeding and avoid infections.
I think that ancient peoples, even having no idea of modern
hygiene, were able to observe correlations and adopted
practices to avoid diseases. Of course that not always worked
fine.
If a practice has an advantage it can become dominant even if it
has no clear justification, just because those who adopt it
have more children than others.
--
o o
in Kenya or Tanzania practized circumcision not on babies just
after birth but on children when they grow and become young
boys. Their "priests" used a herbal patch on the part to stop
bleeding and avoid infections.
I think that ancient peoples, even having no idea of modern
hygiene, were able to observe correlations and adopted
practices to avoid diseases. Of course that not always worked
fine.
If a practice has an advantage it can become dominant even if it
has no clear justification, just because those who adopt it
have more children than others.
--
o o
Bradipus
Apr 25, 2012, 3:04:05 PM4/25/12
to
Matt Giwer, 11:07, mercoledě 25 aprile 2012:
Despising baths and body care was common also among Christians.
--
o o
--
o o
JTEM
Apr 25, 2012, 4:33:26 PM4/25/12
to
Bradipus <ahem-a...@never.mind.it> wrote:
> I remember years ago I watched a documentary in which a people
> in Kenya or Tanzania practized circumcision not on babies just
> after birth but on children when they grow and become young
> boys. Their "priests" used a herbal patch on the part to stop
> bleeding and avoid infections.
Circumcision was practiced in ancient Egypt in this way. They
> I remember years ago I watched a documentary in which a people
> in Kenya or Tanzania practized circumcision not on babies just
> after birth but on children when they grow and become young
> boys. Their "priests" used a herbal patch on the part to stop
> bleeding and avoid infections.
didn't circumcise babies but boys around the age of puberty.
http://gnesiolutheran.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/EgyptianCircumcision.jpg
The above is a colorized rendition of an actual Egyptian
carving.
> I think that ancient peoples, even having no idea of modern
> hygiene, were able to observe correlations and adopted
> practices to avoid diseases. Of course that not always worked
> fine.
The ancients were great at noting a correlation, but lousy at
uncovering a cause.
VtSkier
Apr 25, 2012, 5:06:02 PM4/25/12
to
deermouse to live. Right, no cause, but certainly a correlation. The
recognized this correlation/vector long before modern medicine
recognized it.
Bradipus
Apr 25, 2012, 7:07:28 PM4/25/12
to
JTEM, 22:33, mercoledě 25 aprile 2012:
> Circumcision was practiced in ancient Egypt in this way. They
> didn't circumcise babies but boys around the age of puberty.
>
>
http://gnesiolutheran.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/EgyptianCircumcision.jpg
>
> The above is a colorized rendition of an actual Egyptian
> carving.
I'd like to know what those glyphs are meaning.
Maybe the blue wavy sign means "OUCH!"
--
o o
> Circumcision was practiced in ancient Egypt in this way. They
> didn't circumcise babies but boys around the age of puberty.
>
>
http://gnesiolutheran.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/EgyptianCircumcision.jpg
>
> The above is a colorized rendition of an actual Egyptian
> carving.
Maybe the blue wavy sign means "OUCH!"
--
o o
Poetic Justice
Apr 25, 2012, 9:59:35 PM4/25/12
to
Martin Edwards wrote;
>There is a parallel in the later Roman
>civilization which recognized the
>importance of cleanliness for health, while
>knowing nothing of germs.
Also sewage drains (7C BC) and fresh clean water (1st aqueduct 312BC).
>The rich even paid for free days at the
>baths for the poor.
Even when charged it was only a pitance.
>They were not particularly solicitous of the
>proles, but of course if too many died
>there would be nobody to do the work.
And Slaves. Rich, middle class, poor and slaves all bathed together.
I know by the 2C AD and possibly earlier, surgeons boiled their
instruments in water before the operation. A 19C doctor would also have
the majority of these types of instruments.
Wounds would be cleaned with Acetum (the acid in vinegar) as an
antiseptic.
And these ancient Roman doctors also knew nothing about germs but made
the connection.
I forgot what Acetum was so I had to google it, some websites claimed
Acetum was actually better than Lister's 19C antiseptic discovery.
Regards, Walter
>There is a parallel in the later Roman
>civilization which recognized the
>importance of cleanliness for health, while
>knowing nothing of germs.
>The rich even paid for free days at the
>baths for the poor.
>They were not particularly solicitous of the
>proles, but of course if too many died
>there would be nobody to do the work.
I know by the 2C AD and possibly earlier, surgeons boiled their
instruments in water before the operation. A 19C doctor would also have
the majority of these types of instruments.
Wounds would be cleaned with Acetum (the acid in vinegar) as an
antiseptic.
And these ancient Roman doctors also knew nothing about germs but made
the connection.
I forgot what Acetum was so I had to google it, some websites claimed
Acetum was actually better than Lister's 19C antiseptic discovery.
Regards, Walter
Poetic Justice
Apr 25, 2012, 10:45:42 PM4/25/12
to
Matt Giwer wrote;
>As elementary medicine is beyond you
>there is nothing more I can add until you
>finish grade school hygiene lessons.
It's a pity that sanity and reality can't be taught?
In the last dozen yrs have you *ever* admitted to being wrong on s.a or
s.h.a?
Or have you lied, avoided or BS your way out of it?
>As elementary medicine is beyond you
>there is nothing more I can add until you
>finish grade school hygiene lessons.
In the last dozen yrs have you *ever* admitted to being wrong on s.a or
s.h.a?
Or have you lied, avoided or BS your way out of it?
JTEM
Apr 26, 2012, 1:45:48 AM4/26/12
to
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Clearly something unknown to the Judeans as the Mikvahs are in standing
> water so diseases can be shared with the entire community.
They got that from the Egyptians who practiced
> Clearly something unknown to the Judeans as the Mikvahs are in standing
> water so diseases can be shared with the entire community.
ritual baths... infecting themselves regularly with
Schistosomiasis. (They got it from the snails).
The last vestige (or most recent example from
the same source) is Islam. Many Muslims wash
before prayers, though perhaps not as formal
as the Egyptian-turned-Jewish baths...
Matt Giwer
Apr 26, 2012, 2:34:06 AM4/26/12
to
On 4/25/2012 3:01 PM, Bradipus wrote:...
diseases they are avoiding with this procedure. Simply talking about it
shows nothing. If in fact it does stop some disease then it should be
well established in the medical literature and the defenders barbaric
Judean ritual would cite the literature instead of making things up as
they go along.
> I remember years ago I watched a documentary in which a people
> in Kenya or Tanzania practized circumcision not on babies just
> after birth but on children when they grow and become young
> boys. Their "priests" used a herbal patch on the part to stop
> bleeding and avoid infections.
>
> I think that ancient peoples, even having no idea of modern
> hygiene, were able to observe correlations and adopted
> practices to avoid diseases. Of course that not always worked
> fine.
>
> If a practice has an advantage it can become dominant even if it
> has no clear justification, just because those who adopt it
> have more children than others.
That can be a reasonable observation IF you can show exactly which
> in Kenya or Tanzania practized circumcision not on babies just
> after birth but on children when they grow and become young
> boys. Their "priests" used a herbal patch on the part to stop
> bleeding and avoid infections.
>
> I think that ancient peoples, even having no idea of modern
> hygiene, were able to observe correlations and adopted
> practices to avoid diseases. Of course that not always worked
> fine.
>
> If a practice has an advantage it can become dominant even if it
> has no clear justification, just because those who adopt it
> have more children than others.
diseases they are avoiding with this procedure. Simply talking about it
shows nothing. If in fact it does stop some disease then it should be
well established in the medical literature and the defenders barbaric
Judean ritual would cite the literature instead of making things up as
they go along.
Matt Giwer
Apr 26, 2012, 2:39:42 AM4/26/12
to
creation by Greeks in Egypt in support of their Maccabean proxies
against the Seleucids this tends to support my idea.
We know from Josephus there were no Judeans in Palestine in the mid 5th
c. BC and his list of peoples who practiced circumcision does not
include anyone who could have been them.
I love it when people shoot themselves in the foot.
Matt Giwer
Apr 26, 2012, 2:42:48 AM4/26/12
to
which would masked the nearly statistically insignificant possible
benefit of circumcision.
As noted elsewhere no one practiced it who could have been Judeans in
mid 5th c. BC Palestine. Claims which imply dozens of generations of
experience cannot possibly apply.
Martin Edwards
Apr 26, 2012, 6:21:22 AM4/26/12
to
ceremony in Turkey: you can tell because they wear a new suit with a
cape and a pillbox hat. Not one was crying, and the event is a big
celebration for family and friends.
JTEM
Apr 26, 2012, 5:01:49 PM4/26/12
to
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> We know from Josephus there were no Judeans
> in Palestine in the mid 5th c. BC
You used to care about physical evidence, and the physical
> We know from Josephus there were no Judeans
> in Palestine in the mid 5th c. BC
evidence is that the Samaritan temple was built at that time.
The Samaritan temple appears to be THE temple, the one
and only -- "The First Temple" -- and it was considered
legitimate until the 2nd century or later.
JTEM
Apr 26, 2012, 5:52:59 PM4/26/12
to
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> This is the case in Islam. I have seen boys who have come from the
> ceremony in Turkey: you can tell because they wear a new suit with a
> cape and a pillbox hat. Not one was crying, and the event is a big
> celebration for family and friends.
Hygiene had to be a fact in circumcision, but I have a
> This is the case in Islam. I have seen boys who have come from the
> ceremony in Turkey: you can tell because they wear a new suit with a
> cape and a pillbox hat. Not one was crying, and the event is a big
> celebration for family and friends.
sneaky suspicion...
Islam is overtly sex-a-phobic, certainly by western standards.
And even the Egyptians seem to have been conscious of
sexual issues. Yes, it's hard for us to believe it given their often
frank depictions, but it is true. For example I point you to the
Negative Confession which prohibits masturbating in holy places.
(though this is often written rather cryptically in modern
translations).
Anyhow, the Egyptians lived in two worlds, by two standards: Their
seemingly anything-goes world of normal life, and their religious
world of ritual cleanliness & purity that included abstinence. So,
perhaps circumcision was meant to diminish sex.
It's not a dumb idea. When was it traditionally performed? Why,
at puberty, right when boys start masturbating like they're going
to start taxing it in another week!
How can that be a coincidence?
-- --
I honestly use this, and is save me money! Try $30
worth of food at a local restaurant for $15!
http://www.groupon.com/r/uu39797360
Matt Giwer
May 20, 2013, 9:51:04 PM5/20/13
to
On 4/15/2012 9:36 PM, JTEM wrote:
> DISCLAIMER:
>
> Although it was always clear that a
> literally true bible was out of the
> question -- and even that all the
> "Evidence" for historical people and
> events is pure wishful thinking -- I
> never had too much interest in building
> an alternative picture. I simply (and
> rather lazily) accepted a popular
> alternative view, and went along my
> merry way. It was Giwer, ironically
> enough, with his postings and crazy
> theories that drew me into the topic,
> and it was Giwer who presented me
> (through one of his cites) with what
> seemed like the obvious answer.
>
> That answer? Well, as Der Spiegel
> put it:
>
> : The Jews had significant competition in antiquity
> : when it came to worshipping Yahweh.
> : Archeologists have discovered a second great
> : temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its
> : better known cousin. It belonged to the
> : Samaritans, and may have been edited out of
> : the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,827144,00.html
>
> But Der Spiegel got it wrong. In part. Or,
> at least the way I see it they got it wrong.
>
> Here. Check this out:
>
> : Starting in the year 732 BC, the Assyrians
> : used their chariots to advance to the
> : Mediterranean and subjugate the state of
> : Israel. The inhabitants were either impaled
> : or taken into captivity.
>
> Nope, never happened. There was no "Israel"
> in 732 BC(E) to subjugate. It goes on:
>
> : Only a few years after the invasion,
> : King Hezekiah persuaded all Israelites
> : -- Jews and Samaritans alike -- to make
> : a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He said this
> : was the only place that still retained
> : the freedom and purity to worship the
> : Almighty.
>
> Now I'll tell you how we all know this is
> pure rubbish: The Samaritan temple wasn't
> built until long after the Assyrians, not
> until the 5th century BC(E). So how could
> there be some cultural split and re-writing
> of the bible, when the temple at the heart
> of the split was still centuries away?
>
> What really pisses me off is that the good
> folks at Der Spiegel know this. It's
> impossible that they could do a story on
> the Samaritan temple, the archaeological
> dig surrounding it, and not hit on it's
> age. It's just that there's some kind of
> rule out there, something that says the
> mainstream media can't burst anyone's
> religious bubble. They always have to say
> SOMETHING that reassures the public that
> their bible, if not literally true, is at
> least mostly true -- based on real events.
All of interest but what does any of it have to do with your belief
that the hillbillies who were illiterate until a century into Greek rule
at the earliest created documents containing a half million words or so
and preserved them for centuries prior to the Greek while they were
illiterate?
I do not see your point.
--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM
> DISCLAIMER:
>
> Although it was always clear that a
> literally true bible was out of the
> question -- and even that all the
> "Evidence" for historical people and
> events is pure wishful thinking -- I
> never had too much interest in building
> an alternative picture. I simply (and
> rather lazily) accepted a popular
> alternative view, and went along my
> merry way. It was Giwer, ironically
> enough, with his postings and crazy
> theories that drew me into the topic,
> and it was Giwer who presented me
> (through one of his cites) with what
> seemed like the obvious answer.
>
> That answer? Well, as Der Spiegel
> put it:
>
> : The Jews had significant competition in antiquity
> : when it came to worshipping Yahweh.
> : Archeologists have discovered a second great
> : temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its
> : better known cousin. It belonged to the
> : Samaritans, and may have been edited out of
> : the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,827144,00.html
>
> But Der Spiegel got it wrong. In part. Or,
> at least the way I see it they got it wrong.
>
> Here. Check this out:
>
> : Starting in the year 732 BC, the Assyrians
> : used their chariots to advance to the
> : Mediterranean and subjugate the state of
> : Israel. The inhabitants were either impaled
> : or taken into captivity.
>
> Nope, never happened. There was no "Israel"
> in 732 BC(E) to subjugate. It goes on:
>
> : Only a few years after the invasion,
> : King Hezekiah persuaded all Israelites
> : -- Jews and Samaritans alike -- to make
> : a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He said this
> : was the only place that still retained
> : the freedom and purity to worship the
> : Almighty.
>
> Now I'll tell you how we all know this is
> pure rubbish: The Samaritan temple wasn't
> built until long after the Assyrians, not
> until the 5th century BC(E). So how could
> there be some cultural split and re-writing
> of the bible, when the temple at the heart
> of the split was still centuries away?
>
> What really pisses me off is that the good
> folks at Der Spiegel know this. It's
> impossible that they could do a story on
> the Samaritan temple, the archaeological
> dig surrounding it, and not hit on it's
> age. It's just that there's some kind of
> rule out there, something that says the
> mainstream media can't burst anyone's
> religious bubble. They always have to say
> SOMETHING that reassures the public that
> their bible, if not literally true, is at
> least mostly true -- based on real events.
All of interest but what does any of it have to do with your belief
that the hillbillies who were illiterate until a century into Greek rule
at the earliest created documents containing a half million words or so
and preserved them for centuries prior to the Greek while they were
illiterate?
I do not see your point.
--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM
JTEM
May 21, 2013, 3:31:46 AM5/21/13
to
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
> All of interest but what does any of it have to do with your belief
> that the hillbillies who were illiterate until a century into Greek rule
> at the earliest created documents containing a half million words or so
> and preserved them for centuries prior to the Greek while they were
> illiterate?
>
> I do not see your point.
I don't understand your question!
> All of interest but what does any of it have to do with your belief
> that the hillbillies who were illiterate until a century into Greek rule
> at the earliest created documents containing a half million words or so
> and preserved them for centuries prior to the Greek while they were
> illiterate?
>
> I do not see your point.
And you show up after all this time to bite my ass
about this?!?
Look: You have no problems what so ever believing in
an Alexandrian origins for the LXX even though the oldest
copies seem to be found in the Levant/modern day Israel.
Clearly you believe that older copies existed, but that
they were destroyed by rival religious nuts (Muslims,
perhaps?), rotten away, lost in fires, etc.
Put short: Given the nature of written documents, you
do not view the absence of evidence as evidence of
absence. That is, unless & until someone else comes
along...
SUDDENLY, if i can't pull written documents from a
Samaritan temple that was destroyed in ancient times
then they never existed!
We know the Romans built a Pagan temple on the location,
believed to have been dedicated to Zeus, and that the
Christians built a church in it's place. But according
to bible-land lore the Samaritan temple was also destroyed
centuries earlier, by the Jews themselves, the cult center
was destroyed at least three times over... and you want
written records?
What's more, if any did exist they would have been
destroyed after the 4th century when such "contradictory"
works were expressly outlawed!
PLUS, if we did find any -- and for all we know we have --
how would we know? Documents of that age are rare, they
differences wouldn't have been "Huge" -- The story of
Samaria so closely matching the official bible version of
David's alter that one has to be the origins of the other,
including the alter itself (displayed quite clearly on
roman era coins depicting Mt Gerizim)...
These are FRAGMENTS at best. Unless we found the right
fragment, one that demonstrated differences from today's
"Official" text we'd have no way of knowing what we've got.
And, oh, I'm not aware of any fragments in existence which
don't show differences... however much significance you
want to lend them.
Quite frankly, there is already better evidence to support
my position than for your own, even as you attack me with
standard for proof that you can not live up to yourself...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
JTEM
May 21, 2013, 5:14:06 AM5/21/13
to
Personally, I pick Samaria as the true home of
the First Temple and our biblical capital (as
opposed to Jerusalem) because, like Giwer, I
favor a more recent as opposed to more ancient
origins of the bible tales & accompanying
religion. But I have to admit that the more
ancient prospect of Shechem is also a contender.
We can date Samaria's temple to the 5th century,
but supposedly the destruction of Shechem's temple
can be dated to sometime around the late 12th
century... quite a difference.
Thus, if one wanted to argue a more ancient origins
even as they downplayed Samaria, then Shechem would
be an attractive alternative...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
the First Temple and our biblical capital (as
opposed to Jerusalem) because, like Giwer, I
favor a more recent as opposed to more ancient
origins of the bible tales & accompanying
religion. But I have to admit that the more
ancient prospect of Shechem is also a contender.
We can date Samaria's temple to the 5th century,
but supposedly the destruction of Shechem's temple
can be dated to sometime around the late 12th
century... quite a difference.
Thus, if one wanted to argue a more ancient origins
even as they downplayed Samaria, then Shechem would
be an attractive alternative...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
0 new messages