###SEEBER AGAIN MAKES EARTH-SHATTERING ADMISSIONS!
Glenn Wilkins
news:<GzHq7.18203$CL.2...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <55de15cf.01091...@posting.google.com>, tmac...@internet4free.net (Ted McMillan) wrote:
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<_4Up7.3575$WW5.1...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > > Address munged to prevent spam, remove "spam." to reply, In message <55de15cf.01091...@posting.google.com>, tmac...@internet4free.net (Ted McMillan) wrote:
> > > > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@spam.seeberfamily.org> wrote in message news:<eLyp7.118077$sC4.3...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...
> > > > > Except for the fact that the government still believes in privacy, and thus forced themselves not to know.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > All the intrusive devices are proof that the government believes in
> > > > privacy and forced themselves not to know?
> > >
> > > There are no "intrusive devices"
> > >
> > Facts? Dates? Documentation? Someone here with the same Dark Ages
> > mind like Lamarr shows a difference of operation here.
>
> The fact is, there have been NO credible witnesses saying that intrusive devices exist,
> just tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs like you.
>
By the same people who have been credible witnesses to inform us that
liberty is useless and only causes schism, and that persecution is
supported by scripture. As you can see, name-calling is also
legitimate for despots.
> > > >Who doesn't know that the
> > > > device called "Carnivore" which is able to read more than every email
> > > > AND ARCHIVE THEM has been in operation?
> > >
> > > And who hasn't read the warning on EVERY ISP, on EVERY Fidonet BBS, that E-mail IS NOT PRIVATE AND > > NEVER HAS BEEN?
> > > The anti-Ted, apparently, who is too stupid to read such warnings.
> >
> > Coming from someone who has told us that liberty only causes schism, I
> > can see why someone would be happy about such a situation. Why not it
> > be a fact that snail mail is also not private?
>
> Let's see. You GIVE a hard copy to a government agency to send to someplace, and you expect what's in that hard copy to be private?
I don't give my snail mail as hardcopy to any government, and I don't
believe you do either. If you did, and you live in the United States,
they may hang you for some of the things you have said that you
believe even today when so many people who think like you now run the
government.
> Reality is just something that happens to other people for you, isn't it?
>
> >And if someone on the
> > newsgroups tells us that liberty only causes schism, would he be happy
> > if his email and snail mail were flagged as they should be?
>
> Yes, in fact, I'd expect them to be. I've got no problem standing behind what I write. Why do you have a problem standing behind what you write?
>
That's a lie. You do not widely publish that liberty is useless and
only causes schism, for you know that if you do you may reach hell
before this day is over! You just think to do that. Go to any truck
stop and widely publish what you posted on these newsgroups, brave
boy!
> > > Yeah, right. Do you know how much bandwidth e-mail and Usenet USE? They're not archivable with current > >technology, heck, they're not even archiveable with long term future technology. You need the pentabyte > >memory before that happens, and we're barely at terabyte storage capability now in the research labs (and > >that won't be available to governments for at least another 2 years).
> >
> > Ted Mac: The government can send devices into space but cannot
> > archive emails?
>
> The Voyager spacecraft required only a TI-99/4A with 32k of memory and a cassette storage to navigate beyond Neptune. Archiving e-mail is a much larger task. You really don't know very much about how modern technology works, do you?
The US can destroy terrorism but she cannot create supercomputers to
archive. Someone here is very arbitrary in every form of reasoning!
>
> >They have phone records that archive for quite a
> > while!
>
> At which point, they have to erase the records so that they can reuse the archival material.
>
So says someone with all the proof.
> > > Maybe because NOTHING that these terrorists did was actually illegal?
> > > Maybe because unlike you, these terrorists aren't stupid enough to use land-line, unscrambled phones and > > unencrypted e-mail?
> >
> > like all other terrorists before them who plotted for a lot less time
> > and were caught!
>
> And were stupid enough to use land-line, unscrambled phones, and unencrypted e-mail.
And somehow were caught?
>
> > And I believe in liberty. I am not stupid nor damned!
>
> From your remarks in this usenet post, you could have fooled me.
All the posters on usenet fooled you, for you pretended to love
liberty and are dare making discussion with people all over the world
who love it. If you have said before that liberty is useless and only
causes schism to other people, please show me how and where to locate
it. It is probably only in dialogue with me that you defacated so
freely.
>
> You actually think it takes less computer memory to send a probe into space than to archive a 30-second phone conversation!
I wasn't talking about computer memory. Other people with less
intelligence will know that I was talking about ability. If the US
can send ships to space and eliminate terrorism, it can create enough
space to arhive everything.
> You think that you should be able to send a letter through the US Postal Service and be guaranteed privacy!
Yes I think that AND I KNOW THAT! I'm sorry that my mind did not come
from the Dark Ages. Yes I believe that is the way it should be. You
are still alive and free to post what you want. If things were really
the other way around you would have already been executed in public
fashion by the government.
> You think you can use a world-wide network built by the US military and that you should be safe from prying eyes while using US Government Property.
OH A SOCIALIST ALSO! So Thomas Edison created the light bulb and I
have to pay royalties to him? My ISP provides my internet service.
Does that give them a right to read my email? Our forefathers warned
us about people with this very mentality. They told us that these are
enemies of liberty and freedom. They told us that these enemies would
always come in and try to trick us into giving them up. They dare not
just live their own lives, but they will always work to secure power
and domination. Now we learn that they have to be able to read what
we write or put on information systems?
I rent an apartment. The apartment is not mine. I did not build it.
I did not go through the work necessary to put on any door knob or fix
a window. Now since that is the case, should the landlord be able to
come into my apartment anytime she wants? Since I put my food in her
refrigerator, can she come into my apartment (being owned by her) and
help herself to the food?
I have read the Constitution. You will have to forgive me if I
interpreted it from kindergarten level and understand clear
kindergarten English. How is it that you are not afraid that anyone
can read the newsgroups and see you saying that liberty is useless and
only causes schism? It is because, as I contend, many in government
today think like you. I happen to know that if you did this in 1940
the world would instantly be a much better place to live in!
But yet you believe you should come within the government to reform it
using democracy? A government not built by you or your Dark Ages
brothers? George Bush, and his cabinet created these things?
>
> Yeah, Stupid and Damned, good description of the Anti-Ted.
It is in your Catholic writings. Included there is what must happen
to me also in love.
> > > > > So what? None of those intrusive divices can evesdrop on thoughts as of yet (though you would have
> > > > >thought that they would have noticed several flying school students who were not interested in taking off
> > > >and landing!)
> > > >
> > > > Five years folks! UNBELIEVABLE! And yet the government was able to
> > > > catch others that took a great deal less time to create!
> > >
> > > That's because those others actually did something illegal.
> >
> > Let terrorists then enter upon long term terrorist maneuvers. That
> > way, they will never do anything illegal. When you plan an attack for
> > three months, you are bound to do something illegal!
>
> Not neccessarily. Taking flying lessons is not illegal. Entering this country over the Canadian Border is not illegal. Using cell phones is not illegal. Going to strip clubs is not illegal. Heck, until September 12th, taking box cutters on a plane was NOT ILLEGAL.
I said when you plan an attack for three months, you are bound to do
something illegal, and that's why they were always caught. Those who
planned for lots less time and were caught must have done something
illegal. I am just repeating myself here.
>
> Clear up until the time of the hijackings, NOTHING these terrorists did was illegal.
But those who planned for lot less time and were caught, did something
illegal. An UNPRECEDENTED thing has happened. Never before in the
history of America did terrorist do only legal things UNTIL RECENTLY.
Only now did they do everything legal and that's why being planned for
upwards of five years went undetected. If that were even so, we would
have heard that from the national media and the government would have
acknowledged this. But I only hear this from Seeber! Where did any
of you hear from the media that for the first time terrorists did
everything legal and that's why this large scale and lengthy plan was
not detected?
>
> > > > > The national leaders are 20 years behind the times, just as you are 100 years behind.
> > > >
> > > > But I believe in liberty!
> > >
> > > And instead, support those who would destroy liberty.
> >
I don't support anyone who tells me that liberty is useless and only
causes schism! If I supported those who would destroy liberty, I
would support Seeber. BUT I DON'T!
> > A damned despot is the one who said that.
>
> Then you are a damned despot, for supporting privacy over liberty.
>
No damned despot I know of would exist who thinks that privacy on the
one side and liberty and security on the other are inseparable. I did
not fight against liberty by preserving privacy. Privacy and liberty
are inseparable!
> >I never said that nor gave
> > a hint of that.
>
> Aid and comfort to the enemy, is what you said and did.
>
Where is the proof of this? And what is the implications of one
telling us that liberty is useless and only causes schism again? Are
we in a schism today? Are we entering a government where such
horrible words are spoken by freedom lovers and those who are appalled
by it are terrorists?
> > Leave it to someone who would tell us that liberty
> > will only cause schism. People such as that have been known to
> > destroy the lives of whole communities!
>
> And have also been known to BUILD communities.
>
AND HAVE ALSO been known to build communities? You must be talking
about the communists. Yes they destroy communities and also build
them, but I love liberty so I ONLY build communities. I don't ALSO
destroy them! I don't believe in depopulation! Thanks for
acknowledging that those who think liberty is useless and only causes
schism destroy the lives of whole communities. Getting truth from you
is hard to come by, and I can only record this date and equate it
higher than the Christmas holiday!
> > > > I didn't say that the story of Ananias and
> > > > Sapphira proves that the scriptures justify religious persecution. So
> > > > someone is even centuries MORE behind.
> > >
> > > Or ahead. We've never tried the Apostolic Ecconomy on a nationwide scale.
> >
> > I have heard that liberty is a dangerous thing not from ahead, for the
> > future hasn't come yet.
>
> So? You think we should be working for the past?
>
I repeat. I have heard that liberty is useless and only causes
schism. I didn't hear any sidelines about past or future. Neither do
I get the impression that a despot is one yesterday and then doesn't
become one for today or for the future. A despot and liberty are the
same yesterday, today and forever. One is liberty and the other is
against it.
> > I heard that voice for almost 2,000 years.
>
> Really, you must be very old then.
>
You seem old enough to know that your Catholic Church is the true
church from the Apostle Peter!
> > The result was the most horrible bloodshed where the murderers are now
> > everywhere telling us about the dynamics of love and hate and worrying
> > about plagiarism.
>
> No, the result was that we found out that privacy is not a luxury we can afford just yet.
We have afforded it for more than a century, but it is not a luxury
that we can afford just yet? I know that someone told me before this
terrorist incident that liberty is useless and only causes schism. I
didn't hear anything about time or place. Someone told me this BEFORE
this terrorist incident!
> > > Or maybe, it's the modern world that is God's children, and you, like your terrorist idol bin Laden, are Satan's > >children.
> >
> > It is a damned despot who said that. I never said that Bin Laden is
> > my idol.
>
> Nope, you just proved it when you claimed that privacy was more important than stopping bin Laden.
But a despot claimed that he proved he wasn't a despot even though he
told us that liberty is useless and only causes schism? I did not
prove that privacy is more important than stopping bin Laden. I
happen to know that we can maintain privacy and stop bin Laden. Only
enemies of liberty will tell us that liberty must be curtailed or
stopped in order to have security. I'm surely NOT THAT PARANOID!
It was pointed out on TechTV that terrorists secure encryption
programs through the black market, and that even if government
officials outlaw encryption, the terrorists will still have encrypted
email that the government will not be able to access. They therefore
concluded that if the government outlaws encryption, SHE WILL ONLY BE
DOING THAT AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES who value their
privacy and use encryption.
Seeber, you are the most incredible of all the despots of the Vatican.
NO ONE ELSE has dared revealed the things that you have!
Ted McMillan
messages in the newsreader without remembering that I had earlier
messages stored in cue and you did not change the message ID on your
computer. Now I have to reproduce these posts again!
I'm a little upset about that!
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org
Cindy
Ted
Have you ever seen the cartoon Pinky and the brain? LOL, I'm sorry,
sometimes little things amuse me. Cindy
Ted McMillan
No I have seen a despot named Cindy teaching me about the fruits of
the spirit and being nice. She has come in telling me that I have
misinterpreted Seeber's words as he told us that "liberty is useless
and only causes schism." She has told me that it is not how I
interpret things that makes them true. This despot named Cindy then
came in to interpret my words how she saw fit.
Seeber interpreted my words on this forum by stating that I have a
Jihad against the United States and freedom. He has said that Osama
Bin Laden is my idol and that I support those who would destroy
freedom. All these things passed by the dark mind of another Dark
Ages infiltrator called Cindy.
And now she shows, without shame again, the fruits of the Antichrist
spirit.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org
Cindy
I am sorry Ted. Since we can't choose the people in our family, maybe
you could try to think of me as a pesky little sister, who argues with
you, and irritates you endlessly, and who you love anyway. :)
In God's love,
Cindy
Theodore M. Seeber
>
> By the same people who have been credible witnesses to inform us that
> liberty is useless and only causes schism, and that persecution is
> supported by scripture. As you can see, name-calling is also
> legitimate for despots.
Like me?
After all, by the anti-Ted, I'm a despot.
> > > Coming from someone who has told us that liberty only causes schism, I
> > > can see why someone would be happy about such a situation. Why not it
> > > be a fact that snail mail is also not private?
> >
> > Let's see. You GIVE a hard copy to a government agency to send to someplace, and you expect what's in > >that hard copy to be private?
>
> I don't give my snail mail as hardcopy to any government, and I don't
> believe you do either.
I most certainly do. The United States Postal Service is a government agency. SUPRISE!
> If you did, and you live in the United States,
> they may hang you for some of the things you have said that you
> believe even today when so many people who think like you now run the
> government.
At least I'm not stockpiling weapons, or commiting illegal acts, so I've got nothing to worry about. Do you?
> > Yes, in fact, I'd expect them to be. I've got no problem standing behind what I write. Why do you have a > >problem standing behind what you write?
> >
>
> That's a lie. You do not widely publish that liberty is useless and
> only causes schism, for you know that if you do you may reach hell
> before this day is over!
I have in the past, and continue to do so in the future. I have nothing to worry about, for I am working inside the system.
> You just think to do that. Go to any truck
> stop and widely publish what you posted on these newsgroups, brave
> boy!
Are newspapers read in truck stops? I write letters to the editor about this stuff all the time. From time to time, they actually print it.
> > > Ted Mac: The government can send devices into space but cannot
> > > archive emails?
> >
> > The Voyager spacecraft required only a TI-99/4A with 32k of memory and a cassette storage to navigate > >beyond Neptune. Archiving e-mail is a much larger task. You really don't know very much about how modern > >technology works, do you?
>
> The US can destroy terrorism but she cannot create supercomputers to
> archive. Someone here is very arbitrary in every form of reasoning!
I never said that the US could destroy terrorism. And in fact, the creation of such supercomputers will be neccessary to do so. I'm just saying it's not possible with current technology. Should that keep us from trying?
> > >They have phone records that archive for quite a
> > > while!
> >
> > At which point, they have to erase the records so that they can reuse the archival material.
>
> So says someone with all the proof.
Start reading the technical journals, and you'll begin to understand the problem.
> > > like all other terrorists before them who plotted for a lot less time
> > > and were caught!
> >
> > And were stupid enough to use land-line, unscrambled phones, and unencrypted e-mail.
>
> And somehow were caught?
If you're stupid enough to use land-line, unscrambled phones, and unencrypted e-mail to organize illegal activity, you'll get caught.
> > > And I believe in liberty. I am not stupid nor damned!
> >
> > From your remarks in this usenet post, you could have fooled me.
>
> All the posters on usenet fooled you, for you pretended to love
> liberty and are dare making discussion with people all over the world
> who love it. If you have said before that liberty is useless and only
> causes schism to other people, please show me how and where to locate
> it. It is probably only in dialogue with me that you defacated so
> freely.
Go check the back issues of the Oregon Statesman Journal, and the Oregonian. I've got no time for the likes of you.
> > You actually think it takes less computer memory to send a probe into space than to archive a 30-second phone conversation!
>
> I wasn't talking about computer memory.
I was. When I said that you'd need pentabyte memory to archive everything, and was laughed at.
>Other people with less
> intelligence will know that I was talking about ability. If the US
> can send ships to space and eliminate terrorism, it can create enough
> space to arhive everything.
Eventually, maybe. But the science isn't up to it YET, is the point.
> > You think that you should be able to send a letter through the US Postal Service and be guaranteed privacy!
>
> Yes I think that AND I KNOW THAT!
Then you are as much an idiot as the anti-Ted. Perhaps you're an anti-Ted Sock Puppet.
>I'm sorry that my mind did not come
> from the Dark Ages. Yes I believe that is the way it should be.
"should be" and "is" are not the same thing, idiot.
> You
> are still alive and free to post what you want. If things were really
> the other way around you would have already been executed in public
> fashion by the government.
No, for I work within acceptable confines of the Government. Thus I have nothing to worry about.
> > You think you can use a world-wide network built by the US military and that you should be safe from prying > >eyes while using US Government Property.
>
> OH A SOCIALIST ALSO! So Thomas Edison created the light bulb and I
> have to pay royalties to him?
And do. Part of the price of every filiment light bulb goes to the Edison estates.
>My ISP provides my internet service.
> Does that give them a right to read my email?
It's in the Terms of Service agreement. Didn't you read that?
> Our forefathers warned
> us about people with this very mentality. They told us that these are
> enemies of liberty and freedom. They told us that these enemies would
> always come in and try to trick us into giving them up. They dare not
> just live their own lives, but they will always work to secure power
> and domination. Now we learn that they have to be able to read what
> we write or put on information systems?
Kind of like those forefathers did, right? And guess what: You signed a contract with your ISP about that.
> I rent an apartment. The apartment is not mine. I did not build it.
> I did not go through the work necessary to put on any door knob or fix
> a window. Now since that is the case, should the landlord be able to
> come into my apartment anytime she wants?
Go read your lease. It's in there. There's a reason why the manager has a passkey to all apartments.
> Since I put my food in her
> refrigerator, can she come into my apartment (being owned by her) and
> help herself to the food?
Read your lease, perhaps.
> I have read the Constitution. You will have to forgive me if I
> interpreted it from kindergarten level and understand clear
> kindergarten English.
Consider it's written in college level 17th century English, that explains a lot.
> How is it that you are not afraid that anyone
> can read the newsgroups and see you saying that liberty is useless and
> only causes schism?
Because, unlike you, I know that the government isn't religious, but is instead a political entity.
>It is because, as I contend, many in government
> today think like you. I happen to know that if you did this in 1940
> the world would instantly be a much better place to live in!
Yeah, right. It would be hard to prove that I broke any laws. And in 1940, I would have been for my government, EVEN if it meant a temporary setback for my politics. Are you today?
> But yet you believe you should come within the government to reform it
> using democracy?
Yes.
> A government not built by you or your Dark Ages
> brothers?
Yes.
> George Bush, and his cabinet created these things?
No. George WASHINGTON and his cabinet created these things. On the second attempt of course.
> > Yeah, Stupid and Damned, good description of the Anti-Ted.
>
> It is in your Catholic writings. Included there is what must happen
> to me also in love.
And you keep proving it right, over and over and over.
> > > > That's because those others actually did something illegal.
> > >
> > > Let terrorists then enter upon long term terrorist maneuvers. That
> > > way, they will never do anything illegal. When you plan an attack for
> > > three months, you are bound to do something illegal!
> >
> > Not neccessarily. Taking flying lessons is not illegal. Entering this country over the Canadian Border is not > >illegal. Using cell phones is not illegal. Going to strip clubs is not illegal. Heck, until September 12th, taking > >box cutters on a plane was NOT ILLEGAL.
>
> I said when you plan an attack for three months, you are bound to do
> something illegal, and that's why they were always caught.
And I showed you things that the terrorists were doing for much more than three months, in preperation for their attack, and NONE OF IT WAS ILLEGAL AT THE TIME.
> Those who
> planned for lots less time and were caught must have done something
> illegal. I am just repeating myself here.
And being stupid about it again, thus proving me right.
> > Clear up until the time of the hijackings, NOTHING these terrorists did was illegal.
>
> But those who planned for lot less time and were caught, did something
> illegal.
Some did. Some did not.
> An UNPRECEDENTED thing has happened. Never before in the
> history of America did terrorist do only legal things UNTIL RECENTLY.
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. USS Cole. Tim McVeigh (everything he did was legal right up to the OK City Bombing). Heck, even the Japanese on December 7th, 1941, stayed in international waters until just before the attack.
There have been plenty of successfull terrorist attacks against US interests where the terrorists stayed legal until the attack.
> Only now did they do everything legal and that's why being planned for
> upwards of five years went undetected. If that were even so, we would
> have heard that from the national media and the government would have
> acknowledged this. But I only hear this from Seeber! Where did any
> of you hear from the media that for the first time terrorists did
> everything legal and that's why this large scale and lengthy plan was
> not detected?
It's not the first time, unfortuneately. There have been many attaks by Al Quadda on American and Soviet property before this, and this was their M.O. EVERY TIME.
> > > > And instead, support those who would destroy liberty.
> > >
> I don't support anyone who tells me that liberty is useless and only
> causes schism! If I supported those who would destroy liberty, I
> would support Seeber. BUT I DON'T!
But you do support the ability of citizens to continue going about their business as if nothing has happened.
> > > A damned despot is the one who said that.
> >
> > Then you are a damned despot, for supporting privacy over liberty.
> >
> No damned despot I know of would exist who thinks that privacy on the
> one side and liberty and security on the other are inseparable. I did
> not fight against liberty by preserving privacy. Privacy and liberty
> are inseparable!
Privacy is outdated. Liberty, maybe not yet, the world isn't ready for Catholic Idealism.
They are easily separable. It's the difference between being a people of the law and a people of criminals.
> > >I never said that nor gave
> > > a hint of that.
> >
> > Aid and comfort to the enemy, is what you said and did.
> >
> Where is the proof of this? And what is the implications of one
> telling us that liberty is useless and only causes schism again? Are
> we in a schism today? Are we entering a government where such
> horrible words are spoken by freedom lovers and those who are appalled
> by it are terrorists?
Yep. Been that way for 40-odd years, now.
> > And have also been known to BUILD communities.
> >
> AND HAVE ALSO been known to build communities? You must be talking
> about the communists. Yes they destroy communities and also build
> them, but I love liberty so I ONLY build communities. I don't ALSO
> destroy them! I don't believe in depopulation! Thanks for
> acknowledging that those who think liberty is useless and only causes
> schism destroy the lives of whole communities. Getting truth from you
> is hard to come by, and I can only record this date and equate it
> higher than the Christmas holiday!
Really? You don't believe in depopulation? Then what are all those guns for?
> > So? You think we should be working for the past?
> >
> I repeat. I have heard that liberty is useless and only causes
> schism. I didn't hear any sidelines about past or future. Neither do
> I get the impression that a despot is one yesterday and then doesn't
> become one for today or for the future. A despot and liberty are the
> same yesterday, today and forever. One is liberty and the other is
> against it.
All I've said is about past and future.
The present is only illusion.
> > Really, you must be very old then.
> >
> You seem old enough to know that your Catholic Church is the true
> church from the Apostle Peter!
But I personally do not know this absolutely, only morally.
> > No, the result was that we found out that privacy is not a luxury we can afford just yet.
>
> We have afforded it for more than a century,
And caused much death with it.
>but it is not a luxury
> that we can afford just yet? I know that someone told me before this
> terrorist incident that liberty is useless and only causes schism. I
> didn't hear anything about time or place. Someone told me this BEFORE
> this terrorist incident!
So? The terrorist incident proved to me that the world isn't ready for idealism.
> > Nope, you just proved it when you claimed that privacy was more important than stopping bin Laden.
>
> But a despot claimed that he proved he wasn't a despot even though he
> told us that liberty is useless and only causes schism? I did not
> prove that privacy is more important than stopping bin Laden. I
> happen to know that we can maintain privacy and stop bin Laden. Only
> enemies of liberty will tell us that liberty must be curtailed or
> stopped in order to have security. I'm surely NOT THAT PARANOID!
And yet, you continue:
> It was pointed out on TechTV that terrorists secure encryption
> programs through the black market, and that even if government
> officials outlaw encryption, the terrorists will still have encrypted
> email that the government will not be able to access. They therefore
> concluded that if the government outlaws encryption, SHE WILL ONLY BE
> DOING THAT AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES who value their
> privacy and use encryption.
If that's not paranoid, then I don't know what is.
> Seeber, you are the most incredible of all the despots of the Vatican.
> NO ONE ELSE has dared revealed the things that you have!
I've also got Asperger's, and thus am a pathologic truth-teller. So what?
Ted
--
Family Websites: http:/seeberfamily.org
"Never start a fight. But if someone starts a fight with you, finish it and win"- Capt. John Sheridan, Babylon 5
Ted McMillan
And why should such go to hell only because she constantly teaches us
things she will not perform and bypasses despots in order to correct
only those who point out the danger produced by them?
That still doesn't take away the fact that a pesty sister cannot stand
in the congregation of the Saints, but will have to stand where all
despots will be!
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.org
Christian Baptist
NO CROSSPING, only post in you room. Thanks
Cindy
Ted, Isn't it a good thing that it is God who judges us, and not our
fellow man? You and I would be in alot of trouble, as would others,
otherwise. " Man looketh on the outward appearance, the lord looketh
on the heart." I've always thought it a good thing that Jesus didn't
hold interviews, or make anyone sign a rulebook, when it came to
making disciples, he just looked into their hearts, and said "Follow
me." And they stepped out in faith, and did it. Alot of them were
kinda rough at first, Peter's always been my favorite ( Big heart, Big
mouth)He got more praise, but mostly cause he was the one speaking out
the most, he also got corrected more than the others. I like John alot
too, mostly because he learned alot about love from Jesus, his
writings are very profound. Anyway, although they started out rough,
after they got to know Jesus better,and grew to love him, they came
along quite nicely. Good thing for us huh?
Your sister in Christ,
Cindy :)
Ted McMillan
>
>Ted, Isn't it a good thing that it is God who judges us, and not our
>fellow man? You and I would be in alot of trouble, as would others,
>otherwise. " Man looketh on the outward appearance, the lord looketh
>on the heart." I've always thought it a good thing that Jesus didn't
>hold interviews, or make anyone sign a rulebook, when it came to
>making disciples, he just looked into their hearts, and said "Follow
>me." And they stepped out in faith, and did it. Alot of them were
>kinda rough at first, Peter's always been my favorite ( Big heart, Big
>mouth)He got more praise, but mostly cause he was the one speaking out
>the most, he also got corrected more than the others. I like John alot
>too, mostly because he learned alot about love from Jesus, his
>writings are very profound. Anyway, although they started out rough,
>after they got to know Jesus better,and grew to love him, they came
>along quite nicely. Good thing for us huh?
> Your sister in Christ,
> Cindy :)
No, it is not a good thing for you who still now only posts to condemn
me and misses people here who insult me and present the same deadly
arguments as Adolf Hitler.
You are posting against me on the charge that I am judgmental and a
trouble maker who is lacking in love. Since you are also so
unbelievably unscrupulous, I can see why you are refusing to answer my
questions.
THE QUESTION WAS:
IF YOU ARE THE ONE TO TEACH LIBERTY LOVING PEOPLE ABOUT LOVE AS IF
YOUR FELLOW DESPOTS MAJOR IN THE FIELD, WHY DID YOU WRITE THE
FOLLOWING TO ME:
Ted
Have you ever seen the cartoon Pinky and the brain? LOL, I'm sorry,
sometimes little things amuse me. Cindy
I await your answer so I can see which cubic inch of heaven can
tolerate anyone like you...