Gay Group Organizes Christmas Festival Featuring Manger with Two Josephs
J
part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/40473
Gay Group Organizes Christmas Festival Featuring Manger with Two Josephs
Gay Group Organizes 'Pink Christmas' in Amsterdam
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch gay group has organized a "Pink Christmas"
festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two
Josephs and two Marys.
Other attractions in the 10-day festival include parties, an open-air
market, gay-themed films, an ice skating rink and religious services on Dec.
25.
ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen says the event is intended to increase
the range of options for homosexual men and women during the Christmas
holiday week
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Father Haskell
bam
BAM
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:3av05t....@news.alt.net...
Pat Magroyne
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous?
You hate Christmas? Or mangers? Or Joseph? Hmm?
> The ironic
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
Ummm... I thought God could do ANYTHING. Hmmm? Yeah.
Uncle Vic
>
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The
> ironic part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay
> marriage; if there are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just zap Jesus into existence, like the god
did with Adam & Eve?
Like all christian dogma, it all boils down to magic. Yup, just don't
think about it. It really happened, it's a miracle, and nobody needs to
explain it. Mmmm-hmmm.
The gays described in the OP were apparently trying to get your goat.
Mission accomplished, I would say.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
panam...@hotmail.com
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off!!!!
Are you finally admitting the "virgin birth" is impossible? Or are you
doubting the power of your gods? Hell, boy...it your gods are "all
that", Jesus would have been born anyway.
"O ye of little faith", indeed.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Dakota
Yeah indeed. If virgins can give birth, what's to stop the two Joes? Or two
Marys for that matter. In the bible story, Joe wasn't much of a
participant. Tell me again how Jesus descended from the line of David? Why
aren't the birthers screaming about this? Where's Jesus's birth
certificate? The long form of course.
MarkA
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous?
Yes. For example, people campaigning to deny the rights and privileges of
marriage to homosexual couples.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
LC
Low IQ, lower morals kook "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:3av05t....@news.alt.net...
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting
Well, there's people that think it's holy to consume the flesh and blood of
some dead guy, but your cyberstalking a 14 year old girl is at the top of
the list.
JohnN
All that OT begattin' got kinda messy and proper records were lost I'm
sure. Mix in the God Approved sex-slave trafficking by the Israelites
and who knows who's your daddy.
JohnN
JohnN
The American Christian Taliban yells its head off when the Jesus Farm
can't be displayed in public, now you're bitchin' cause it's too
public.
JohnN
archie dux
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
Sort of like saying that since there was no father, there
could have been no baby Jesus.
archie
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/40473
>
> Gay Group Organizes Christmas Festival Featuring Manger with Two Josephs
>
> Gay Group Organizes 'Pink Christmas' in Amsterdam
>
> AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch gay group has organized a "Pink Christmas"
> festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two
> Josephs and two Marys.
>
> Other attractions in the 10-day festival include parties, an open-air
> market, gay-themed films, an ice skating rink and religious services on Dec.
> 25.
>
> ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen says the event is intended to increase
> the range of options for homosexual men and women during the Christmas
> holiday week
>
> --
> J Young
Syd M.
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
>
Then your sick religion would not be.
Sounds like a winner to me, Junkie.
PDW
jcon
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
>
The really sad thing is that true irony of that remark
in this particular context is as far over J's head as
the International Space Station.
-jc
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/40473
>
> Gay Group Organizes Christmas Festival Featuring Manger with Two Josephs
>
> Gay Group Organizes 'Pink Christmas' in Amsterdam
>
> AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch gay group has organized a "Pink Christmas"
> festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two
> Josephs and two Marys.
>
> Other attractions in the 10-day festival include parties, an open-air
> market, gay-themed films, an ice skating rink and religious services on Dec.
> 25.
>
> ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen says the event is intended to increase
> the range of options for homosexual men and women during the Christmas
> holiday week
>
> --
> J Young
W.T.S.
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if
> there are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/40473
Church, bad. Sex, good.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Jimbo
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
He was adopted.
Jimbo
> This is why they were traditionally called "queers".
>
> BAM
And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
Jimbo
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The
> > ironic part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay
> > marriage; if there are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
>
> Wouldn't it have been easier to just zap Jesus into existence, like the god
> did with Adam & Eve?
>
> Like all christian dogma, it all boils down to magic. Yup, just don't
> think about it. It really happened, it's a miracle, and nobody needs to
> explain it. Mmmm-hmmm.
>
And for pity's sake! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
> The gays described in the OP were apparently trying to get your goat.
> Mission accomplished, I would say.
Exactly. Just more fodder for the wahhambulance. :D
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...and why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
Actually, those to whom you actually are referring are some of
the most UN-Christian people on the planet. The RRR & LDS
cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists -- almost all of whom lyingly
CLAIM to be Christians, in order to cloak themselves in the respect-
ability of Christianity.
Ironically, in the process, those hateful losers are proving to be
DEVASTATING to Christianity, because they've succeeded in
CONNING much of society into believing that they (the pseudo-
Christian bigots) are *representative* and *typical* of Christian-
ity ---
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/USA-Chr-Non-Relig--1990-2008-2026Proj.html
Normal (actual) Christians are everyone's sensible, fair-minded, pretty
intelligent, ordinary, unobtrusive, work-a-day next-door neighbors. Un-
like the RRR cultists, we are quiet, low-profile, and friendly people who
usually have a live-and-let-live attitude with respect to the personal
affairs and behaviors of other people. Very few of us ever engage in any
form of busybodyism or discrimination. In America, 83% of the population
professes Christianity. Only a mere 6% of those are obnoxious and bigoted
RRR Cultists. The other 94% of us are normal and tolerant. We comprise
about 250,000,000 of the USA's 300 million people. IF we were anything like
the RRR cultists, America would be a tyrannical theocracy that would make
Iran look benign by comparison. So PLEASE -- keep these two completely
opposite groups of people straight in your minds, and don't blame "Christ-
ians" when you see hatefulness and bigotry. We do NOT deserve to be
wrongfully painted with the RRR Cult's brush. (And one more thing... the
RRR loves to make people think that Christians oppose abortion. That's a
major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans support the right to choose, and reliable
polls show that has been consistently true for over 30 years. And 5/6 of
Americans are normal Christians. Do the math. Most of us are sensibly Pro-
Choice! When it comes to breaking that Commandment against lying, RRR
cultists are experts at it.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.ergrgsdfg.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:46:12 -0800 (PST),
> Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > ...and why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>
> Actually, those to whom you actually are referring are some of
> the most UN-Christian people on the planet. The RRR & LDS
> cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists --
Why are they "UN-Christian?" Because they publicly disapprove
of men who put dicks up each others' asses?
Anlatt the Builder
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
>
>
Sure there could, if God wished.
And just think: if there were two Marys, there could have been two
Jesuses!
The Chief Instigator
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
There might well hadn't been such a person...since "Jesus" didn't come from
Nazareth, having been supposedly born a century or two before said village
existed. That's what happens when fairy tales get spun over a few
centuries.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Toronto 1 (OT, November 28)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, December 3 vs. San Antonio, 11:05 AM
Jimbo
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:47:10 -0500, J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
> > part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> > are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
>
> There might well hadn't been such a person...since "Jesus" didn't come from
> Nazareth, having been supposedly born a century or two before said village
> existed. That's what happens when fairy tales get spun over a few
> centuries.
>
I've also seen references that the alleged jesus was from Galillee.
Not sure when that was built.
bam
"Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6851ccd2-1ddb-4246...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
BAM
Lefty
Hideous beyond belief.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
Actually, those to whom he actually was referring are some of
the most UN-Christian people on the planet. The RRR & LDS
The Chief Instigator
> On Dec 1, 6:11?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:47:10 -0500, J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> > Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
>> > part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
>> > are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
>>
>> There might well hadn't been such a person...since "Jesus" didn't come from
>> Nazareth, having been supposedly born a century or two before said village
>> centuries.
>
> I've also seen references that the alleged jesus was from Galillee.
> Not sure when that was built.
Probably a few decades after the supposed events.
The Chief Instigator
That is far beyond an Uff Da!
The Chief Instigator
Some of 'em are moderately rational and make an effort to emulate him, but
you're one of the patent frauds, Bryan.
NAMBLA Pelosi
a19f24...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Better an idiot than an AIDS infected fool spreading his
buttcheeks for stray male tools.
Non scrivetemi
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:25:31 -0500,
> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>
> > Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>
> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another way to
insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
This and the recent behavior of Adam Lambert, are just two of
the latest reasons why homosexuals should never be considered
for any rights other than mental health treatment.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscr...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
[[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
people with blue eyes are. The sexual orientations are merely
TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY. Thus, gays should NEVER have
been EXCLUDED from marriage. And their marrying is totally
HARMLESS.
The so-called "DOMA" laws are the most IRRATIONAL and
HATEFUL laws in America since the Jim Crow laws that once
poisoned the South. (It take PROFOUNDLY-stupid people to
be CONNED into pressuring lawmakers to pass such ludicrous
and heinous legislation.. And almost surely, the U.S. Supreme
court will END the unfair exclusion of gays from marriage, based
on the 14th Amendment, just as it did in 1967 for interracial
couples in "Loving vs. Virginia."
There is only ONE "insult to marriage" -- and that is DIVORCE.
And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. That
is an ARTIFICIAL attribute ascribed by, or accepted by, those
wanting to ADD that to it. ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned
and licensed -- and tens of millions of people have been married
SECULARLY -- in NON-religious ceremonies, such as by judges,
ship captains, justices-of-the-peace, etc.
So EVERY way you look at it, you LOSE, mindless bigot.
And society is FAST coming to realize all of the above.
And that will DOOM your loathsome agenda to EXTINCION.
Then -- GOOD RIDDANCE to PUTRID rubbish.
[[[ Now HERE is the restored response about
BIGOTS vis-a-vis actual Christians. ]]] ---
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscr...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
[[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
Actually, those to whom he actually was referring are some of
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"NAMBLA Pelosi" <an...@anon.invalid> wrote:
[ ... ]
> Better an idiot than an AIDS infected fool spreading his
> buttcheeks for stray male tools.
I guess you must realize how big an IDIOT you are making of
yourself with such abject stupidity, since you cravenly COWER
behind a silly alias while SPEWING it.
You bigots are the biggest MORONS on the planet.
And you keep right on PROVING it.
HASTENING the day when society will REJECT your hate-
agendas.
Works for me!!! ROTFL!!!!
KEEP on earning those �� OCR �� Points!!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The One HUGE Contribution
that Overt Bigots Make to Society:
Earning �� OCR �� Points!
One thing is for sure: No one will ever see an INTELLIGENT
RRR Cult bigot. I.e., those who *openly* oppose the right
of all girls and women who so choose to access the remedy of
abortion-upon-request (Anti-Choicers)... or who seek to DENY
access to across-the-board EQUAL rights (including the right to
marry their chosen same-sex partners) to gays. Or both. (It's
normally both. With most such bigots, it's usually in for a penny,
in for a pound.). Bigotry and IGNORANCE go together.
The ONLY thing that such sociopaths are really good for is
something that all bigots who have openly declared support for
the above two hate-agendas do VERY well: every time they do
it, they automatically build up their own personal stockpiles of
�� OCR �� Points.
And the more Points they earn, the more LUDICROUS those
caricatures of human beings become. And the more society
becomes AWARE, at a now-accelerating pace, that those loath-
some agendas are something that NO intelligent, sensible, or
fair-minded person would want ANYTHING to do with.
So TO all of those who DO so publicly make such total fools
of themselves, leading to the ultimate auto-destruction of their
hate-agendas -- the egalitarians who support, defend, and pro-
mote human/civil rights and personal liberties are everywhere
PRAISING you for this ONE aspect of your personality defect
that accomplishes something GOOD. By earning all those virtual
�� OCR �� Points, you actually (albeit inadvertently) ARE making
a relevant contribution to hastening the *demise* of bigotry,
and in the process you therefore are contributing to making the
USA a far BETTER place.
Before much longer, the American people will reach the point
at which they would find attending a rat fight to be preferable
to having any association with your agendas -- just as happened
with the segregationists. AND -- just as happened to the segreg-
ationists after their agendas swirled down the Drain of Extinction,
those who remain bigots of the *above* ilk will almost all bottle up
their hatefulness in their minds and never openly express it, so
as not to be regarded by their neighbors and society as pariahs.
Now that this more recent set of bigoted agendas is going
down the drain at an ever-accelerating pace, the process is
becoming very entertaining theater for all who are fair-minded
egalitarians. Because the RRR cultists are SO bone-ignorant
that they either don't realize that they're making this positive
contribution, or else they just they can't help themselves. (Yet.)
And in the process, they can't even present any FACTS to sup-
port their hate-agendas, because NO such facts even EXIST!
It's FUN to watch, since the ultimate outcome will be so
BENEFICIAL to America... and to societies all over the world
that will be looking up us for our ENDING these forms of bigotry,
and thus becoming far more admirable and worthy of emulation.
America has done it before -- when it got RID of segregation.
So the precedent for this was set very nicely, 45 years ago.
Most of the egalitarians still living who helped to guide *those*
agendas into oblivion are doubtlessly watching and assisting
*these* agendas to the same doom with equal enthusiasm and
relish! (We've done this before, and we're LOVING this process!)
The Points the bigots earn are virtual, of course, but the
*process* of their earning them has a very REAL impact. That's
why "OCR" stands for �� Operation Consciousness-Raising ��.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's quite true. From Torquamada to Hitler to slaveowning Pat
Robertson, Idiots all.
Jimbo
> In article <6851ccd2-1ddb-4246-8573-
> a19f2463c...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
>
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 12:54 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > This is why they were traditionally called "queers".
>
> > > BAM
>
> > And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>
> Better an idiot than an AIDS infected fool
Well, in your case. both and idiot, and an AIDS infected fool.
Jimbo
<nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> In article <p3qbh59clctjeidv071ilq95msge2ef...@4ax.com>
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:25:31 -0500,
> > > "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [ ... ]
>
> > >> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>
> > > Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>
> > Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
>
> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another way to
> insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>
Christianity finds ways of insulting its self.
Lars Eighner
J broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Have you ever heard of anything so disgusting and blasphemous? The ironic
> part is that it becomes the perfect argument against gay marriage; if there
> are 2 Josephs then there couldn't be a baby Jesus.
So a virgin having a baby doesn't strain your credulity, but ...
Face it J. The world is a very big place and your god is very small.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 0
9.0 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
In article <ns1ch599me546ttr7...@4ax.com>
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:23:44 +0100 (CET),
> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscr...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> > (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>
> >>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>
> >> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
>
> [[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
>
> > Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> > way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>
> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
Normal people don't intentionally infect others with AIDS.
pnyikos
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >>> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
> >>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
> >> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
>
> [[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
>
> > Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> > way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>
> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
> people with blue eyes are.
Irrelevant.
Their orientation may be normal (but then, would you call an
orientation towards bestiality or necrphilia normal?) but some of
their behavior is over the top, just like a lot of behavior of people
of all races, genders and creeds is over the top.
> Thus, gays should NEVER have
> been EXCLUDED from marriage.
They haven't been, you post-Thanksgiving turkey. As I pointed out to
another person who seems less hyper on the subject than you are, gays
have always had the right to indulge in marriages of convenience with
members of the opposite sex, including homosexual members of the
opposite sex. [Question of terminology: are lesbians included in your
definition of "gays"?] At least for the last fifteen years they have
then been perfectly free to live together with adults or near-adults
of their own sex and do whatever they would do if they were married.
> The so-called "DOMA" laws are the most IRRATIONAL and
> HATEFUL laws in America since the Jim Crow laws that once
> poisoned the South.
Utter bilge, see above.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you really are a Christian, Craig.
Just what is it about marriage that makes you so all-fired
enthusiastic about promoting something that hardly ever even occurred
to Christians in the first 19 centuries of Christianity?
> There is only ONE "insult to marriage" -- and that is DIVORCE.
So marrying a horse, or a corpse, would be no insult to marriage? You
ARE one weird dude, Chilton.
I agree that divorce is an insult to marriage, but then, why don't you
oppose no-fault divorce? It punishes the partners who really believe
in marriage and want to make theirs work. Don't you have any empathy
for such people, who may be the victims of a shallow and tawdry affair
of their spouses, who want out because they have more fun playing
around?
> And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. That
> is an ARTIFICIAL attribute
Yet more suspicions about your alleged Christianity. "What God has
joined together, let no man put asunder." Do you think this is one of
the bogus verses of the Bible?
> ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned
> and licensed
Wrong, some religious marriages are entered into in defiance of state
decrees. Can you say "miscegnation"?
> So EVERY way you look at it, you LOSE, mindless bigot.
2% on Fischer's irony meter, which takes the true reading and
subtracts it from 100%.
> [[[ Now HERE is the restored response about
> BIGOTS vis-a-vis actual Christians. ]]] ---
>
> Actually, those to whom he actually was referring are some of
> the most UN-Christian people on the planet.
Just which people was he referring to? If you mean all people who
oppose same-sex marriage, your own credentials as a Christian have
taken another nosedive.
> The RRR & LDS
> cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists --
And what allows you to escape the same condemnation you are leveling
below?
>almost all of whom lyingly
> CLAIM to be Christians, in order to cloak themselves in the respect-
> ability of Christianity.
[...]
May God have mercy on the soul (and body, after the General
Resurrection) of:
> ••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
And may God also have mercy on the tens of thousands of viable unborn
babies exterminated by him.
Note: for this use of "babies," see the following Medline entry:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/002398.htm
and the following Medicine.net article:
http://www.medicinenet.com/pregnancy/page2.htm#1j
> ••• A True American
...success story, except for him being foully murdered by someone who
does not share Jesus's attitude of letting the sun shine on the good
and wicked, equally.
> ••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••
> ••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
...where you will see a bunch of sappy fruitcakes all saying "I am Dr.
Tiller". It's a safe bet none of them can report about themselves the
way Tiller did:
"We have some experience with, uh, late terminations --
aah, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks,
and, uh, something like 800, uh, fetal anomalies
between 26 and 36 weeks, aah, in the past five years."
http://www.cashill.com/images/audio/Tiller%20Audio%20-%201995-1.mp
Peter Nyikos
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[[[ IGNORE the LYING subject header above. My ACTUAL
post, filled with IRREFUTABLE FACTS, follows. ]]] ---
Exposing the LIES that BIGOTS Spew About MARRIAGE
= = = = = = = =
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:23:44 +0100 (CET),
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscr...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
[[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
people with blue eyes are. The sexual orientations are merely
TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY. Thus, gays should NEVER have
been EXCLUDED from marriage. And their marrying is totally
HARMLESS.
The so-called "DOMA" laws are the most IRRATIONAL and
HATEFUL laws in America since the Jim Crow laws that once
poisoned the South. (It take PROFOUNDLY-stupid people to
be CONNED into pressuring lawmakers to pass such ludicrous
and heinous legislation.. And almost surely, the U.S. Supreme
court will END the unfair exclusion of gays from marriage, based
on the 14th Amendment, just as it did in 1967 for interracial
couples in "Loving vs. Virginia."
There is only ONE "insult to marriage" -- and that is DIVORCE.
And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. That
is an ARTIFICIAL attribute ascribed by, or accepted by, those
wanting to ADD that to it. ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned
and licensed -- and tens of millions of people have been married
SECULARLY -- in NON-religious ceremonies, such as by judges,
ship captains, justices-of-the-peace, etc.
So EVERY way you look at it, you LOSE, mindless bigot.
And society is FAST coming to realize all of the above.
And that will DOOM your loathsome agenda to EXTINCION.
Then -- GOOD RIDDANCE to PUTRID rubbish.
[[[ Now HERE is the restored response about
BIGOTS vis-a-vis actual Christians. ]]] ---
Actually, those to whom he actually was referring are some of
the most UN-Christian people on the planet. The RRR & LDS
cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists -- almost all of whom lyingly
CLAIM to be Christians, in order to cloak themselves in the respect-
ability of Christianity.
Ironically, in the process, those hateful losers are proving to be
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/USA-Chr-Non-Relig--1990-2008-2026Proj.html
*~*~*~*~*~*
[[[ NOW for REFUTING attempted "rebuttal" BY a Bigot. ]]] ---
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>>> �(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> �"Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>>> � �... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>>>>> � �Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>>>> � � �Precisely -- �because THIS is what IS true:
>> � � � � � �[[[ �That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
>>> � � Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
>>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>> � � �Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
>> people with blue eyes are The sexual orientations are merely
>> TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY.
> Irrelevant.
Your obvious IGNORANCE is duly noted. Great start! Now every-
one has a head's-up on the STUPIDITY we can expect from you.
> Their orientation may be normal (but then, would you call an
> orientation towards bestiality or necrphilia normal?) but some of
> their behavior is over the top, just like a lot of behavior of people
> of all races, genders and creeds is over the top.
(1) Both bestiality and necrophilia are so RARE as to be an
irrelevant thing for you to be trying to employ as a basis
of comparison... besides being HARMLESS, unless an
animal is hurt.
(2) If **ANY** person's behavior, in ANY respect, is NOT
illegal -- then ONLY doltish busybodies would be the least
bit concerned about it.
>> �Thus, gays should NEVER have been EXCLUDED from marriage.
> They haven't been.
First of all, in AMERICA, there should RIGHT NOW be NO place
that can deny marriage to any couple based on gender composition.
That is a flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment (as the U.S.
Supreme Court made clear when it rendered the exclusion of
interracial couples from marriage EXTINCT in a nanosecond, in '67.
The 14th Amendment *guarantees* EQUAL rights to ALL people.
And per the "full faith and credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution,
NO state has the right to DENY the full rights of marriage to ANY
couple married in any OTHER state.
Some day SOON, all of this will land on the heads of hateful
bigots and render THEIR irrational hate-agendas EXTINCT.
> As I pointed out to another person, gays have always had
> the right to indulge in marriages of convenience with members of
> the opposite sex, including homosexual members of the opposite
> sex.
LOL!!! You are funnier than hell if you think anyone reading that
won't regard you to be an IDIOT! **CLUE** -- Per what I said
above, any MORON'S desire to deny full-fledged marriage to SAME-
sex couples wilt soon LOSE. Forever!! Just as the segregations so
properly and dramatically LOST. Forever!
> Question of terminology: are lesbians included in your definition
> of "gays"?]
*I* don't have any definition of gays. It is generally known that
ALL gays, regardless of gender, are gays/homosexuals. And I regard
making a distinction such as "lesbians" to fine-tune their situation to be
as ludicrous and sexist as it is to call women by "Miss" and "Mrs."
without there being any such marital distinction applied to men.
> At least for the last fifteen years they have then been perfectly
> free to live together with adults or near-adults of their own sex and
> do whatever they would do if they were married.
Which is NOT the same as MARRIAGE. And there is NO reason to
deny marriage to any couple on the basis of gender composition.
>> � � The so-called "DOMA" laws are the most IRRATIONAL and
>> HATEFUL laws in America since the Jim Crow laws that once
>> poisoned the South.
> Utter bilge...
...on YOUR part, as I just PROVED, above.
> I'm beginning to wonder whether you really are a Christian, Craig.
Clearly you have me confused with someone who GIVES a flying
rat's ass about what you "wonder." I am one. Take it or leave it. If
you choose to be IGNORANT, that's YOUR problem. (And so far,
you've been very effective at demonstrating that.)
> Just what is it about marriage that makes you so all-fired enthu-
> siastic about promoting something that hardly ever even occurred
> to Christians in the first 19 centuries of Christianity?
FAIRNESS!!
And. "Hardly ever?" Read THIS ---
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
>> � � There is only ONE "insult to marriage" -- and that is DIVORCE.
> So marrying a horse, or a corpse, would be no insult to marriage?
Since it is IMPOSSIBLE, obviously not. A universal requirement of
marriage is something that neither animals nor corpses could meet:
They can't give CONSENT!
(But please DO keep clutching at those specious straws! It's FUN
watching ignorant bigots self-destruct in public, and prove just HOW
moronic and specious their stances are.)
> I agree that divorce is an insult to marriage, but then, why don't
> you oppose no-fault divorce?
The right to no-fault divorce is settled law, and it is FAIR. NO one
is being FORCED to divorce. But YOU stupidly wish same-sex couples
to be FORCED to be *excluded* from marriage.
> It punishes the partners who really believe in marriage and want to
> make theirs work.
That's their tough luck. Whether or not a couple makes a marriage
work is a PRIVATE matter and is THEIR business ONLY, busybody.
> Don't you have any empathy for such people, who may be the
> victims of a shallow and tawdry affair of their spouses, who want out
> because they have more fun playing around?
THEIR business, and no one else's. The LAST thing I will EVER be
is a busybody. I've seen too much of the STUPIDITY of that from the
bigots I oppose.
>> � � And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. �That
>> is an ARTIFICIAL attribute ascribed by, or accepted by, those
>> wanting to ADD that to it. ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned
>> and licensed -- and tens of millions of people have been married
>> SECULARLY -- in NON-religious ceremonies, such as by judges,
>> ship captains, justices-of-the-peace, etc.
> Yet more suspicions about your alleged Christianity.
What makes you think that Christians should be as CLYELESS as
YOU are? Everything I just said is 100% TRUE, Even though, in
cowardly fashion, you OMITTED most of that paragraph. (That
NEVER works with me -- I RESTORED the rest of the points that
render your argument irrational.)
> "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
> Do you think this is one of the bogus verses of the Bible?
The Bible is MEANINGLESS to at least 17% of the American
people -- and people who have CIVIL (secular) ceremonies have
NO religious component associated with it. What make you think
you have any reason to criticize people on so SPECIOUS a basis?
>>� ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned and licensed -- and tens
>> millions of people have been married SECULARLY -- in NON-
>> ceremonies, such as by judges, ship captains, justices-of-the-
>> peace, etc.
[[[ Again, I have *restored* that which you omitted. ]]]
> Wrong, some religious marriages are entered into in defiance
> of state decrees. Can you say "miscegnation"?
The so-called "miscegenation" laws bit the dust in 1967.
>> � � So EVERY way you look at it, you LOSE, mindless bigot.
>>
>> � � � [[[ Now HERE is the restored response about
>> � � � � � � � BIGOTS vis-a-vis actual Christians. ]]] �---
>>
>> � � �Actually, those to whom he actually was referring are some of
>> the most UN-Christian people on the planet.
> Just which people was he referring to? If you mean all people who
> oppose same-sex marriage, your own credentials as a Christian have
> taken another nosedive.
He referred to "Christers," which was a mistake many FAIR-minded
people make who are not fully aware of the vast DIFFERENCE between
being Christian, and being a hateful and ignorant PSEUDO-Christian of
the RRR and LDS (and many in the RCC) cults.
>>� The RRR & LDS cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists -- ...
> And what allows you to escape the same condemnation you are >
> leveling below?
FAIRNESS to people, vis-a-vis hatefulness.
>> ...almost all of whom lyingly CLAIM to be Christians, in order to
>> cloak themselves in the respectability of Christianity.
<Anti-Choice hate-bullcrap and idiocy flushed>
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Non scrivetemi" <nonscr...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Jimbo" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
[[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Non scrivetemi" wrote:
>> "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> �"Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>> � �... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>>>> � �Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>>> � � �Precisely -- �because THIS is what IS true:
>> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
(What lying bullcrap!)
> Christianity finds ways of insulting its self.
Actually, it's the PSEUDO-Christian and bigoted CULTISTS
who do that.
Normal Christians only RARELY are bigots. As I pointed
out to you before when I wrote this (please keep the
distiction in mind and don't contribut to painting NORMAL/
actual Christians... who often are egalitarians like me...
with a brush we don't deserve):
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> It's quite true. From Torquamada to Hitler to slaveowning Pat
> Robertson, Idiots all.
NONE of whom, just like the RRR and LDS cultists, were the LEAST BIT
representative of, or typical, Christians.
huge
<snip>
> That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans
> support the right to choose, ........
<snip>
Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
sadly gives it as only 42% or .42
http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
What's your source for your number?
A link would be nice, because I'm thinking
that you are perhaps engaging in a little
Xtian wishful thinking. I know that 666
is some kind of magic number for those
inclined to believe in the beastly supernatural,
but _really_!
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
duke
<www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
Normal people call them ABnormal.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Firelock
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
>
> <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
> > Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>
> Normal people call them ABnormal.
Only in the way that tall people are abnormal.
--
Walt
Jimbo
<mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> In article <ns1ch599me546ttr72vg2035oth81ei...@4ax.com>
> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:23:44 +0100 (CET),
> > > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [ ... ]
>
> > >>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
>
> > >>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
>
> > >> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
>
> > [[[ That portion is restored, farther down. ]]]
>
> > > Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> > > way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>
> > Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>
>
How odd that you think you are normal.
Jimbo
> (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>
> <snip>> That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans
> > support the right to choose, ........
>
> <snip>
>
> Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
>
> Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
> sadly gives it as only 42% or .42http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
>
Gallup polls show that 72% favor a right to choice in the first
trimester. That drops to 59% in the second trimester, and drops to
32% in the third trimester. So you need to qualify your number, and
how it was derived.
Jimbo
> > "Non scrivetemi" wrote:
> >> "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >>> "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>>> ... And why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
> >>>> Ha Ha! Very funny, but not the least bit true.
> >>> Precisely -- because THIS is what IS true:
> >> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> >> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>
> (What lying bullcrap!)
>
> > Christianity finds ways of insulting its self.
>
> Actually, it's the PSEUDO-Christian and bigoted CULTISTS
> who do that.
>
Ahh... I love Autumn in the Highlands. Those bagpipes carry for
kilometers!
Stile4aly
Or red haired people are abnormal.
pnyikos
<x...@m.com> wrote:
> [[[ IGNORE the LYING subject header above. My ACTUAL
> post, filled with IRREFUTABLE FACTS, follows. ]]] ---
There is no lie in the new subject header, and you present no
irrefutable facts that significantly support your claim:
> Exposing the LIES that BIGOTS Spew About MARRIAGE
[superfluous duplication of post still on the same Google page as the
one to which I am responding, deleted here]
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> >>> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> >>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
> >> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
> >> people with blue eyes are The sexual orientations are merely
> >> TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY.
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Your obvious IGNORANCE is duly noted.
There is no ignorance in noting that sexual orientation has no
significant bearing on whether same-sex marriage is an insult to
Christianity and the solemn vows of *covenant* marriage.
> > Their orientation may be normal (but then, would you call an
> > orientation towards bestiality or necrphilia normal?) but some of
> > their behavior is over the top, just like a lot of behavior of people
> > of all races, genders and creeds is over the top.
>
> (1) Both bestiality and necrophilia are so RARE
As rare as less than 2% of the number who have homosexual
orientation? [The same percentage as homo bear to hetero, roughly
speaking.] Do you have facts to back this up?
Why should gays suppress people who are just as numerous,
proportionately speaking, as they are?
> (2) If **ANY** person's behavior, in ANY respect, is NOT
> illegal -- then ONLY doltish busybodies would be the least
> bit concerned about it.
So I would be a busybody if I concerned myself about people who lie?
And why are YOU concerned about my perfectly legal posting behavior?
> >> Thus, gays should NEVER have been EXCLUDED from marriage.
> > They haven't been.
>
> First of all, in AMERICA, there should RIGHT NOW be NO place
> that can deny marriage to any couple based on gender composition.
> That is a flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment (as the U.S.
> Supreme Court made clear when it rendered the exclusion of
> interracial couples from marriage EXTINCT in a nanosecond, in '67.
That isn't gender composition, turkey.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Earl Weber ("duke") <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)<www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people.
> Normal people call them ABnormal.
No. Only MORONS are mentally-defective and socially-
retarded enough to think that. LOSERS like YOU.
Previous post follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Exposing the LIES that Bigots Spew About MARRIAGE
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> (�`�.Craig Chilton.��) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote;
[ ... ]
>> The RRR Cult loves to make people think that Christians oppose
>> abortion. That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans support the right
>> to choose, and reliable polls show that has been consistently true for
>> over 30 years. And 5/6 of Americans are normal Christians. Do the
>> math. Most of us who are Christians are sensibly Pro-Choice! When
>> it comes to breaking that Commandment against lying, RRR cultists
>> are experts at it.)
> Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
>
> Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
> sadly gives it as only 42% or .42
> http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
That WOULD be sad, if that were the whole story.
But the fact is that the ONLY way a person can really be an
Anti-Choicer is for him to actually regard mere RPEs (reproduct-
ive-process entities) as PEOPLE. The vast majority of folks are
NOT remotely that stupid.
Any person who supports ANY abortions is NOT Anti-Choice.
Repressive in many cases, yes. But ANTI-Choice, no.
The number I used was a round number. To be specific, the
percentage of Americans who SUPPORT either some or all abor-
tions is as the Gallup Poll said: Only 23% are truly ANTI-Choice.
So not even ONE-QUARTER of Americans are Anti-Choicers!
> What's your source for your number?
YOUR source, actually. Just like you, I used the Gallup Poll.
> A link would be nice, because I'm thinking that you are per-
> haps engaging in a little Xtian wishful thinking.
I deal in facts. But it's refreshing that you recognize that
wishful thinking on the part of ACTUAL Christians would FAVOR
being PRO-Choice. Since -- as you can see above -- most of us
ARE Pro-Choice!
> I know that 666 is some kind of magic number for those
> inclined to believe in the beastly supernatural, but _really_!
Count me out, along with most Christians. 666 is a perfectly
harmless number, just like any other number. UNTIL the time
comes when the Anti-Christ arrives and he proceeded to ABUSE
it. Just as Hitler abused the science regarding evolution, and
used it as an excuse for forced attempts at eugenics upon
innocent victims in bogus "experiments."
RRR Cult loons disparage evolution, and because of what
Hitler did, they often attempt to LAMELY paint the science with
an undeserved brush that it never deserved.
(But then, no PSEUDO-Christians RRR cult lemming is very
bright, or he couldn't BE an RRR Cult lemming.)
Oh... and only a FEW Christians are sweating 2012, either. :)
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.Largwertgdy.com>" <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people.
>
> > Normal people call them ABnormal.
>
> No. Only MORONS are mentally-defective and socially-
> retarded enough to think that.
You being the experienced moron that you are, I'll award you two
moron points. Go buy yourself a bag of social-retards. They're
on sale cheap at fag bars across the country because of water
damage.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
� � [[[ �IGNORE the LYING subject header above. �My ACTUAL
� � � � � post, filled with IRREFUTABLE FACTS, follows. �]]] ---
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:18:23 -0800 (PST),
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> There is no lie in the new subject header...
The first four words of it comprise BOTH a lie AND reveal
your profound immaturity/arrested-development.
> ...and you present no irrefutable facts that significantly
> support your claim:
LYING certainly is your long suit. Keep it up. I love
watching bigots self-destruct in public.
>> � � � Exposing the LIES that BIGOTS Spew About MARRIAGE
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> �(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>>>>> � � Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
>>>>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>>>> � � �Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
>>>> people with blue eyes are � The sexual orientations are merely
>>>> TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY. �
>>> � � Irrelevant.
>> � � �Your obvious IGNORANCE is duly noted.
> There is no ignorance in noting that sexual orientation has no
> significant bearing on whether same-sex marriage is an insult to
> Christianity and the solemn vows of *covenant* marriage.
Yes there is because ALL supposed "covenant" and religious aspects
attached to marriage are ARTIFICALLY-ascribed to it. And THEN *only*
when those involved CHOOSE such attributes. Who do NOT include the
tens of millions of people who were (and are being) married CIVILLY in
SECULAR circumstances... and the 17% of Americans to whom the Bible
is both meaningless and worthless: The USA's **FIFTY MILLION** NON-
Christians and NON-Jews.
No matter HOW much you may WISH that were different, there isn't
one single damned thing you can do about that. EVER. Fortunately.
>>> � �Their orientation may be normal (but then, would you call an
>>> orientation towards bestiality or necrphilia normal?) but some of
>>> their behavior is over the top, just like a lot of behavior of people
>>> of all races, genders and creeds is over the top.
>> � � (1) �Both bestiality and necrophilia are so RARE as to be an
>> irrelevant thing for you to be trying to employ as a basis
>> of comparison... besides being HARMLESS, unless an
>> animal is hurt.
> As rare as less than [5%] of the number who have homosexual
> orientation? Do you have facts to back this up?
5% is **FIFTEEN MILLION** Americans. How often do you hear
of cases of bestiality or necrophilia? (Keep CLUTCHING at those
straws, bigot. It's funnier than hell to watch!!)
>> � � (2) �If **ANY** person's behavior, in ANY respect, is NOT
>> � � � � � illegal -- then ONLY doltish busybodies would be the least
>> � � � � � bit concerned about it.
> So I would be a busybody if I concerned myself about people who lie?
IF (1) *You* were being lied TO, or (2) IF a lie were being told
that could, if believed, possibly prove detrimental to the personal
liberties and well-being of other people.
I **regularly** expose LYNG BIGOTS on the basis of (2).
> And why are YOU concerned about my perfectly legal posting behavior?
See (2) above, and my comment about it.
>>>> � ��Thus, gays should NEVER have been EXCLUDED from marriage.
>>> � � They haven't been. �
>> � � �First of all, in AMERICA, there should RIGHT NOW be NO place
>> that can deny marriage to any couple based on gender composition.
>> That is a flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment (as the U.S.
>> Supreme Court made clear when it rendered the exclusion of
>> interracial couples from marriage EXTINCT in a nanosecond, in '67.
> That isn't gender composition.
Male-female, male-male, and female-female ALL are examples of
the gender composition of couples.
> TO BE CONTINUED...
Lots of luck. So far you are batting 0.0000.
As BIGOTS always do.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
Sensible and truthful portions retained, below.
<FLUSSSSHHHHhhhhhhhh������!!!!!>
Awww. Too bad. Nothing left. Except for
the one who posted the above, now-disposed-of
swill =>=
\/
======
\/
\/
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | |
/ O O\ | "Dawk." |
/ \ | |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\__/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |__ _ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c__Bill Taylor___
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.Lregergy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
>
> � � [[[ �IGNORE the LYING subject header above. �My ACTUAL
> � � � � � post, filled with IRREFUTABLE FACTS, follows. �]]] ---
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:18:23 -0800 (PST),
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > There is no lie in the new subject header...
>
> The first four words of it comprise BOTH a lie AND reveal
> your profound immaturity/arrested-development.
>
> > ...and you present no irrefutable facts that significantly
> > support your claim:
>
> LYING certainly is your long suit. Keep it up. I love
> watching bigots self-destruct in public.
>
> >> � � � Exposing the LIES that BIGOTS Spew About MARRIAGE
>
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>
> >>>>> � � Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> >>>>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>
> >>>> � � �Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
> >>>> people with blue eyes are � The sexual orientations are merely
> >>>> TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY. �
>
> >>> � � Irrelevant.
>
> >> � � �Your obvious IGNORANCE is duly noted.
>
> > There is no ignorance in noting that sexual orientation has no
> > significant bearing on whether same-sex marriage is an insult to
> > Christianity and the solemn vows of *covenant* marriage.
>
> Yes there is because ALL supposed "covenant" and religious aspects
> attached to marriage are ARTIFICALLY-ascribed to it.
Most people view it as spiritual bonding. Since your marriage
never meant anything to you, you have no concept of what it is.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...and why Christers are traditionally called idiots.
Actually, those to whom you actually are referring are some of
the most UN-Christian people on the planet. The RRR & LDS
cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists -- almost all of whom lyingly
CLAIM to be Christians, in order to cloak themselves in the respect-
ability of Christianity.
Ironically, in the process, those hateful losers are proving to be
DEVASTATING to Christianity, because they've succeeded in
CONNING much of society into believing that they (the pseudo-
Christian bigots) are *representative* and *typical* of Christian-
ity ---
http://www.Egalitarian.biz/USA-Chr-Non-Relig--1990-2008-2026Proj.html
Normal (actual) Christians are everyone's sensible, fair-minded, pretty
intelligent, ordinary, unobtrusive, work-a-day next-door neighbors. Un-
like the RRR cultists, we are quiet, low-profile, and friendly people who
usually have a live-and-let-live attitude with respect to the personal
affairs and behaviors of other people. Very few of us ever engage in any
form of busybodyism or discrimination. In America, 83% of the population
professes Christianity. Only a mere 6% of those are obnoxious and bigoted
RRR Cultists. The other 94% of us are normal and tolerant. We comprise
about 250,000,000 of the USA's 300 million people. IF we were anything like
the RRR cultists, America would be a tyrannical theocracy that would make
Iran look benign by comparison. So PLEASE -- keep these two completely
opposite groups of people straight in your minds, and don't blame "Christ-
ians" when you see hatefulness and bigotry. We do NOT deserve to be
wrongfully painted with the RRR Cult's brush. (And one more thing... the
RRR loves to make people think that Christians oppose abortion. That's a
major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans support the right to choose, and reliable
polls show that has been consistently true for over 30 years. And 5/6 of
Americans are normal Christians. Do the math. Most of us are sensibly Pro-
Choice! When it comes to breaking that Commandment against lying, RRR
cultists are experts at it.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Ray Fischer
>> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>
>Normal people don't intentionally infect others with AIDS.
"Normal" people infect each other with syphillus, gonorrhea,
HPV, herpes, influenza, measles, chicken pox, smallpox, ...
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
<x...@m.com> wrote:
[...]
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> >>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >>>> "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
> > As I pointed out to another person, gays have always had
> > the right to indulge in marriages of convenience with members of
> > the opposite sex, including homosexual members of the opposite
> > sex.
>
> LOL!!! You are funnier than hell if you think anyone reading that
> won't regard you to be an IDIOT!
You are funnier than hell if you think everyone reading that is of the
same illogical bent as you are. You are indulging in one of the
crudest fallacies in the book: the bandwagon fallacy ("We are the wave
of the future, so we can safely ignore anything you say.")
> **CLUE** -- Per what I said
> above, any MORON'S desire to deny full-fledged marriage to SAME-
> sex couples wilt soon LOSE. Forever!!
CLUE: you don't have the gift of precognition. And you are an idiot
if you think everyone reading this will think you do have it.
> > Question of terminology: are lesbians included in your definition
> > of "gays"?]
[long-winded affirmative answer deleted]
> > At least for the last fifteen years they have then been perfectly
> > free to live together with adults or near-adults of their own sex and
> > do whatever they would do if they were married.
>
> Which is NOT the same as MARRIAGE.
It is marriage in everything except what many cohabiting couples call
"a meaningless scrap of paper". Oh, and the rights which they can
each have by way of marriages of convenience that each has with a
member of the opposite sex.
Did you think I wouldn't notice that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I
wrote about that up there?
> >> The so-called "DOMA" laws are the most IRRATIONAL and
> >> HATEFUL laws in America since the Jim Crow laws that once
> >> poisoned the South.
> > Utter bilge...
>
> ...on YOUR part, as I just PROVED, above.
If that's your idea of a proof, your very sanity is in doubt.
> > I'm beginning to wonder whether you really are a Christian, Craig.
>
> Clearly you have me confused with someone who GIVES a flying
> rat's ass about what you "wonder." I am one. Take it or leave it.
I won't take it, not without some evidence to counter all the evidence
against it that I am heaping up here.
> > Just what is it about marriage that makes you so all-fired enthu-
> > siastic about promoting something that hardly ever even occurred
> > to Christians in the first 19 centuries of Christianity?
> And. "Hardly ever?" Read THIS ---
>
> http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
One icon, and some old-hat stuff by Boswell that made a splash about
fifteen years ago but which I believe has largely been
debunked--"marriages" more like the institution of "blood brothers."
> >> There is only ONE "insult to marriage" -- and that is DIVORCE.
> > So marrying a horse, or a corpse, would be no insult to marriage?
>
> Since it is IMPOSSIBLE, obviously not.
Very possible. In fact, I remember reading about one minister about
20 years ago who said he was broadminded enough to consider marrying a
man and a sheep. It made the Esquire Magazine Dubious Achievement
awards.
> A universal requirement of
> marriage is something that neither animals nor corpses could meet:
> They can't give CONSENT!
I see you've never had your leg humped by a dog like I have. I was
totally passive and, being 12 years old at the time, couldn't quite
grasp what it was up to until my father told me.
[Chilton jeeringly counting his chickens before they are hatched,
deleted]
> > I agree that divorce is an insult to marriage, but then, why don't
> > you oppose no-fault divorce?
>
> The right to no-fault divorce is settled law, and it is FAIR. NO one
> is being FORCED to divorce.
The partner who doesn't want one IS forced by the one who DOES want
one.
> > It punishes the partners who really believe in marriage and want to
> > make theirs work.
>
> That's their tough luck. Whether or not a couple makes a marriage
> work is a PRIVATE matter
So I'm not even allowed to help the one wanting to make a go at
marriage?
> and is THEIR business ONLY, busybody.
You remind me of Cain's taunt: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
> > Don't you have any empathy for such people, who may be the
> > victims of a shallow and tawdry affair of their spouses, who want out
> > because they have more fun playing around?
>
> THEIR business, and no one else's.
Less and less Christian. I am amazed at your lack of empathy for
jilted women (or men).
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
� � [[[ �IGNORE the LYING subject header above. �My ACTUAL
� � � � � post, filled with IRREFUTABLE FACTS, follows. �]]] ---
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:04:39 +0100,
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.Lregergy.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <wwgergemedy.com> wrote:
>>> There is no lie in the new subject header...
>> The first four words of it comprise BOTH a lie AND reveal
>> your profound immaturity/arrested-development.
>>> ...and you present no irrefutable facts that significantly
>>> support your claim:
>> LYING certainly is your long suit. Keep it up. I love
>> watching bigots self-destruct in public.
>>>> � � � Exposing the LIES that BIGOTS Spew About MARRIAGE
>>>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> �(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.Layorgergedy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> � � Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
>>>>>>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
>>>>>> � � �Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
>>>>>> people with blue eyes are � The sexual orientations are merely
>>>>>> TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY. �
>>>>> � � Irrelevant.
>>>> � � �Your obvious IGNORANCE is duly noted.
>>> Yes there is because ALL supposed "covenant" and religious aspects
>>> attached to marriage are ARTIFICALLY-ascribed to it. ...
> Most people view it as spiritual bonding.
People have the RIGHT to view it or NOT view it any way they
wish. And lots of people accomplish the same thing playing with each
other with sex toys. Whatever works!
>>> ... And THEN *only* when those involved CHOOSE such attributes.
>>> Who do NOT include the tens of millions of people who were (and are
>>> being) married CIVILLY in SECULAR circumstances... and the 17% of
>>> Americans to whom the Bible is both meaningless and worthless: The
>>> USA's **FIFTY MILLION** NON-Christians and NON-Jews.
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.Legsdgdy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:48:32 -0600,
> "huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> The RRR Cult loves to make people think that Christians oppose
> >> abortion. That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans support the right
> >> to choose, and reliable polls show that has been consistently true for
> >> over 30 years. And 5/6 of Americans are normal Christians. Do the
> >> math. Most of us who are Christians are sensibly Pro-Choice! When
> >> it comes to breaking that Commandment against lying, RRR cultists
> >> are experts at it.)
>
> > Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
> >
> > Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
> > sadly gives it as only 42% or .42
> > http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
>
> That WOULD be sad, if that were the whole story.
>
> But the fact is that the ONLY way a person can really be an
> Anti-Choicer is for him to actually regard mere RPEs (reproduct-
> ive-process entities) as PEOPLE.
As opposed to breakfast sausage content the way they are at Iowa
meat packing houses? Does McDonalds know what they are putting
in those meat patties?
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> �(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
>>>>> �(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> �"Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> � � �As I pointed out to another person, gays have always had
>>> the right to indulge in marriages of convenience with members of
>>> the opposite sex, including homosexual members of the opposite
>>> sex.
>> � � �LOL!!! �You are funnier than hell if you think anyone reading that
>> won't regard you to be an IDIOT!
> You are funnier than hell if you think everyone reading that is of the
> same illogical bent as you are.
There is NOTHING illogical about ENDING the unconstitutional and
hateful ERXCLUSION of same-sex couples from marriage. The 14th
Amendment *guarantees* EQUAL rights to ALL Americans. And that
was used to render all laws that excluded interracial couples from
marriage EXTINCT. **EXPECT** the Court to do the SAME for same-
sex couples.
>>� **CLUE** -- Per what I said above, any MORON'S who desire
>> to deny full-fledged marriage to SAME- sex couples wilt soon LOSE. �
>> Forever!!
> CLUE: you don't have the gift of precognition.
No need. I have the same capability that MOST *sensible* people
have. The capability to OBSERVE. And historical precedents (along with
the clear-cut one I just mentioned -- "Loving vs. Virginia," 1967 -- show
that the fact you bigots will permanently LOSE is probably inevitable!
>>> � � Question of terminology: are lesbians included in your definition
>>> of "gays"?]
>> *I* don't have any definition of gays. It is generally known that
>> ALL gays, regardless of gender, are gays/homosexuals. And I regard
>> making a distinction such as "lesbians" to fine-tune their situation to be
>> as ludicrous and sexist as it is to call women by "Miss" and "Mrs."
>> without there being any such marital distinction applied to men.
>>> � � At least for the last fifteen years they have then been perfectly
>>> free to live together with adults or near-adults of their own sex and
>>> do whatever they would do if they were married.
>> � � �Which is NOT the same as MARRIAGE. And there is NO reason to
>> deny marriage to any couple on the basis of gender composition.
> It is marriage in everything except what many cohabiting couples call
> "a meaningless scrap of paper". Oh, and the rights which they can
> each have by way of marriages of convenience that each has with a
> member of the opposite sex.
>
> Did you think I wouldn't notice that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what
> I wrote about that up there?
I ignored nothing.
>>>> � � The so-called "DOMA" laws are the most IRRATIONAL and
>>>> HATEFUL laws in America since the Jim Crow laws that once
>>>> poisoned the South.
>>> � �I'm beginning to wonder whether you really are a Christian, Craig.
>> � � Clearly you have me confused with someone who GIVES a flying
>> rat's ass about what you "wonder." �I am one. �Take it or leave it.
> I won't take it, not without some evidence to counter all the evidence
> against it that I am heaping up here.
Your being that DELUSIONAL is not my problem. NOR is what I believe
ANY of your business unless I CHOOSE to provide it to you. I *have*
chosen to let everyone know that I'm an actual (NON-RRR-Cult) Christian.
>>> � �Just what is it about marriage that makes you so all-fired enthu-
>>> siastic about promoting something that hardly ever even occurred
>>> to Christians in the first 19 centuries of Christianity?
>> FAIRNESS!!
>>
>> � � And. �"Hardly ever?" �Read THIS ---
>>
>> http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
> One icon, and some old-hat stuff by Boswell that made a splash
> about fifteen years ago but which I believe has largely been
> debunked--"marriages" more like the institution of "blood brothers."
PROVIDE the "debunking." Otherwise, your comment comes under
the heading of "bigoted hearsay."
>>>> � � There is only ONE "insult to marriage" -- and that is DIVORCE.
>>> � � So marrying a horse, or a corpse, would be no insult to marriage?
>> � � Since it is IMPOSSIBLE, obviously not. A universal requirement of
>> marriage is something that neither animals nor corpses could meet:
>> They can't give CONSENT!
>>
>> (But please DO keep clutching at those specious straws! It's FUN
>> watching ignorant bigots self-destruct in public, and prove just HOW
>> moronic and specious their stances are.)
> Very possible. In fact, I remember reading about one minister about
> 20 years ago who said he was broadminded enough to consider marrying a
> man and a sheep. It made the Esquire Magazine Dubious Achievement
> awards.
He was wrong, per what I said above. (But in any case, that
would be harmless!)
> I see you've never had your leg humped by a dog like I have. I was
> totally passive and, being 12 years old at the time, couldn't quite
> grasp what it was up to until my father told me.
Yeah. All kids probably experience that. In my case, I couldn't
understand why my parents seemed so upset with the dog, because
they didn't explain it, and I had to reach that conclusion on my own.
>>> � � �I agree that divorce is an insult to marriage, but then, why don't
>>> you oppose no-fault divorce? �
>> � � The right to no-fault divorce is settled law, and it is FAIR. �NO one
>> is being FORCED to divorce. But YOU stupidly wish same-sex couples
>> to be FORCED to be *excluded* from marriage.
> The partner who doesn't want one IS forced by the one who DOES
> want one.
That's a private matter between them.
>>> � � It punishes the partners who really believe in marriage and want
>>> to make theirs work. �
>> � � That's their tough luck. �Whether or not a couple makes a marriage
>> work is a PRIVATE matter and is THEIR business ONLY, busybody.
> So I'm not even allowed to help the one wanting to make a go at
> marriage?
*IF* they ASK you to, yes. Otherwise, NONE of your business.
> You remind me of Cain's taunt: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Cain had just MURDERED his brother! You really DO like to engage
in clutching at straws, don't you?
>>> � � Don't you have any empathy for such people, who may be the
>>> victims of a shallow and tawdry affair of their spouses, who want out
>>> because they have more fun playing around?
>> � � THEIR business, and no one else's.
> I am amazed at your lack of empathy for jilted women (or men).
If they come to me for advice, I'd be happy to try to be of assistance.
Meanwhile, I'm SENSIBLE enough NOT to be a busybody.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The Inevitable Fate of Movements
of Intolerance in America
Society ALWAYS outgrows intolerant and hateful movements
that are mired in stupidity, and are supported by NO relevant
facts. ALWAYS. No exceptions! And our own history, here
in the USA, makes that very clear. Since 1865 ---
-- Slavery -- EXTINCT
-- Opposition to Women's Suffrage -- EXTINCT
-- Prohibition -- EXTINCT
-- Opposition to Birth-Control Pill -- EXTINCT
-- Segregation -- EXTINCT
-- Anti-Semitism -- ENDANGERED (Thankfully)
-- Anti-Choice (abortion) -- LAUGHINGSTOCK STATUS
-- Opposition to EQUAL Rights for Gays -- FADING FAST
Segregationists were a JOKE (i.e., "laughingstock status")
during the last few years before it became extinct. As opposition
to EQUAL rights for gays (with respect to housing, being parents,
marriage, and employment) continues to fade, the remaining
opponents first will become laughingstocks, and then that
hatefulness will end in extinction. constant consciousness-raising,
as is being assisted by the media in its sitcoms, talk shows, etc., is
very helpful.
The ludicrous and hateful actions and defense of sociopathic
agendas against individual liberties on the part of the adherents/
lemmings of the RRR Cult will soon lead to American society's
becoming EMBARRASSED to have those louts in their midst,
making our country a laughingstock in front of the entire world.
Even now, the process of their becoming FED UP with that is
building toward the critical mass that will trigger the *rejection*
of the RRR's **shameful** and worthless agendas. Before much
longer, society will reject those movements with all the force that
it brought to bear against segregation.
Historical precedents have CONSISTENTLY proven that
Americans **outgrow* movements of intolerance (such as ALL
of the above), and then REJECT them -- leaving them behind
FOREVER.
And *that* is EXTINCTION.
Very WELCOME extinction. As in, "Good riddance forever!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[[[ IGNORE the ALTERATION of the subject header by
the subbmoronic and dishonest bigot, Bill Taylor. ]]]
HERE is the ACTUAL subject header under which the post below
originally appeared:
Gay Group Organizes Christmas Festival Featuring
Manger with Two Josephs
= = = = = = = =
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:58:00 +0100,
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote;
[ ... ]
>>>> The RRR Cult loves to make people think that Christians oppose
>>>> abortion. That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans support the right
>>>> to choose, and reliable polls show that has been consistently true for
>>>> over 30 years. And 5/6 of Americans are normal Christians. Do the
>>>> math. Most of us who are Christians are sensibly Pro-Choice! When
>>>> it comes to breaking that Commandment against lying, RRR cultists
>>>> are experts at it.)
>>> Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
>>>
>>> Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
>>> sadly gives it as only 42% or .42
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
>> That WOULD be sad, if that were the whole story.
>>
>> But the fact is that the ONLY way a person can really be an
>> Anti-Choicer is for him to actually regard mere RPEs (reproduct-
>> ive-process entities) as PEOPLE. The vast majority of folks are
>> NOT remotely that stupid.
<Taylor's OFF-topic CRAP flushed>
huge
The linked-to article reflects only Gallup's most recent poll.
Assuming you are not just making up numbers, the most recent
32% would be the number to go with, and would be even _more_
damaging to the claim I was responding to. I notice he has never
responded with any source for his number. I would like to see
the source for yours, too. Doesn't anyone give sources for numbers
around here? Xst on a crutch, you can't just pull correct numbers
out of the air!
Jimbo
> Jimbo :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:48 am, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> >> (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>
> >> <snip>> That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans
> >> > support the right to choose, ........
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
>
> >> Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
> >> sadly gives it as only 42% or .42http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
>
> > Gallup polls show that 72% favor a right to choice in the first
> > trimester. That drops to 59% in the second trimester, and drops to 32%
> > in the third trimester. So you need to qualify your number, and how it
> > was derived.
>
> The linked-to article reflects only Gallup's most recent poll.
> Assuming you are not just making up numbers, the most recent
> 32% would be the number to go with,
My numbers were from Jan 2009, I doubt that they've changed much since
that time. Additionally, it is dubious in the extreme that 32%
accurately depicts all abortion, in all of the time frames I
outlined. My guess is that Gallup was only polling for third
trimester abortions, which a majority is clearly against.
huge
> On Dec 3, 8:19 am, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>> Jimbo :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 2, 11:48 am, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>> >> (¯`·.žCraig Chiltonž.·Ž¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>>
>> >> <snip>> That's a major LIE. Fully 2/3 of Americans
>> >> > support the right to choose, ........
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Let's look at that 2/3 or .666.
>>
>> >> Gallup poll, May 7-10, 2009,
>> >> sadly gives it as only 42% or .42http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm
>>
>> > Gallup polls show that 72% favor a right to choice in the first
>> > trimester. That drops to 59% in the second trimester, and drops to
>> > 32% in the third trimester. So you need to qualify your number, and
>> > how it was derived.
>>
>> The linked-to article reflects only Gallup's most recent poll. Assuming
>> you are not just making up numbers, the most recent 32% would be the
>> number to go with,
>
> My numbers were from Jan 2009,
Just show a link to the numbers.
And, by the way, how in the _hell_ can you get
numbers for the second and third quarters
from January, unless it is an old set of
numbers from a previous year!
> I doubt that they've changed much since
> that time. Additionally, it is dubious in the extreme that 32%
> accurately depicts all abortion, in all of the time frames I outlined.
> My guess is that Gallup was only polling for third trimester abortions,
> which a majority is clearly against.
You obviously did read the LINK I provided.
Go there in your browser and READ.
Do I also have to tell you what a browser is?
Now, give me a link or a real citation for the
three numbers you gave me. I would remind
you that since you gave very, very specific numbers,
you obviously must have read them recently.
Go back and provide the citation. Either that,
or admit to yourself that you are making up
numbers, and are lying to yourself and others.
Or admit that you just made up the numbers
to lie to others.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My guess is that Gallup was only polling for third
> trimester abortions, which a majority is clearly against.
And if so, what a shame that America could be infested
with so many BUSYBODIES!
The GOOD news is that almost all of those "opponents"
are PASSIVE, and thus -- HARMLESS.
huge
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:09:09 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com>
That is how the dynamics of hierarchical groups works.
Lots and lots of passive betas prop up the aggressive alphas.
Just being passive does not mean you are harmless.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
huge <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> (�`�.Craig Chilton�.��) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>> Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My guess is that Gallup was only polling for third
>>> trimester abortions, which a majority is clearly against.
>> And if so, what a shame that America could be infested
>> with so many BUSYBODIES!
>>
>> The GOOD news is that almost all of those "opponents"
>> are PASSIVE, and thus -- HARMLESS.
> That is how the dynamics of hierarchical groups works.
> Lots and lots of passive betas prop up the aggressive alphas.
> Just being passive does not mean you are harmless.
As long as the bigots remain vastly outnumbered (as the homo-
phobic ones SOON will be) -- they'll be society's laughingstocks.
Anti-Choicers (on abortion) have had that status since "Roe vs.
Wade."
huge
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:29:22 -0600,
> huge <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>> (¯`·.Craig Chiltonž.·¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>>> Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> My guess is that Gallup was only polling for third
>>>> trimester abortions, which a majority is clearly against.
>
>>> And if so, what a shame that America could be infested
>>> with so many BUSYBODIES!
>>>
>>> The GOOD news is that almost all of those "opponents"
>>> are PASSIVE, and thus -- HARMLESS.
>
>> That is how the dynamics of hierarchical groups works.
>> Lots and lots of passive betas prop up the aggressive alphas. Just
>> being passive does not mean you are harmless.
>
> As long as the bigots remain vastly outnumbered (as the homo-
> phobic ones SOON will be) -- they'll be society's laughingstocks.
> Anti-Choicers (on abortion) have had that status since "Roe vs. Wade."
I am also pro-choice, but I think your arguments are the wrong ones.
It is better to stick to the actual arguments for choice than to
quote popularity statistics. Popularity does not in any way
equate with correctness.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
huge <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> (�`�.Craig Chilton�.��) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>> huge <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>>> (�`�.Craig Chilton?.��) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
>>>> Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> My guess is that Gallup was only polling for third
>>>>> trimester abortions, which a majority is clearly against.
>>>> And if so, what a shame that America could be infested
>>>> with so many BUSYBODIES!
>>>>
>>>> The GOOD news is that almost all of those "opponents"
>>>> are PASSIVE, and thus -- HARMLESS.
>>> That is how the dynamics of hierarchical groups works.
>>> Lots and lots of passive betas prop up the aggressive alphas. Just
>>> being passive does not mean you are harmless.
>> As long as the bigots remain vastly outnumbered (as the homo-
>> phobic ones SOON will be) -- they'll be society's laughingstocks.
>> Anti-Choicers (on abortion) have had that status since "Roe vs.
>> Wade."
> I am also pro-choice, but I think your arguments are the wrong
> one It is better to stick to the actual arguments for choice than to
> quote popularity statistics. Popularity does not in any way
> equate with correctness.
Okay. Here is a TON of solid facts that make dog meat of the
stances of the Anti-Choicers. Feel free to draw from those to
your heart's content:
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion, just like aspirin, is nothing more than a valuable
REMEDY for an unwanted medical condition. Folks who are
Pro-Choice are not "pro-abortion" any more than there are any
such people as those who are "pro-aspirin." People who are
Pro-Choice regarding abortion defend the right of all girls and
women to have ready, unfettered, and legal ACCESS to that
remedy. And they would defend the right of girls and women
to have no impairments to ACCESS to the right to full gestation,
if *that* were their choice -- if there were any loons running
around seeking to deprive them of that option. Thus, Pro-
Choicers are sometimes misperceived as favoring one option
over the other. They do not. They support both options
EQUALLY. The misperception happens because the remedy of
abortion is the *only* one of the two options that has a crowd
of hateful, screeching, and ignorant bigots opposing it.
ANTI-Choice louts irrationally seek to impose immense
hardship upon more than a million girls and women per year,
in the USA, by again FORCING them to gestate to term,
against their will, as was the case in the Pre-Roe vs. Wade
Dark Ages. A very real, 9-month-long form of RAPE. Such
a scenario would cause the loss of HUGE ranges of future
opportunities to those girls and women, unless they were
able to afford travel to FREE locations where abortion was
still safe, legal and unfettered. ANTI-Choicers are sociopaths,
and are totally without excuse. (And to date, NO Anti-Choicer
or RRR Cultist (usually the same people) has ever yet been
able to refute ANY of the points made in this article. Which
shows how*monumentally* morally-bankrupt they truly are.)
To see the grave and long-term DANGER that threatened
America, if McCain had won the 2008 election, please read these;
We were VERY lucky!! in each case the components of the URLS
follow, in case one or both get shortened in posting.) ---
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/11/vital-warning-unseen-unheeded-now.html
http://
apifar.blogspot.com/
2007/11/vital-warning-unseen-unheeded-now.html
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/12/surreal-alternate-reality-if-democrats.html
http://
apifar.blogspot.com/
2007/12/surreal-alternate-reality-if-democrats.html
Abortions obtained by girls and women terminate three of
the four of the reproductive-process entities (RPEs): zygotes,
embryoes & fetuses, up until the 7th month** of gestation)
which have ALL of these characteristics in common with the
first stage -- gametes (sperm and ova):
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness*
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend the later three stages of the reproductive
process but NOT the Stage One entities (gametes).
** (AFTER the 7th month of gestation begins, conscious
awareness may be possible, but all the other of the above-
listed attributes still apply. (But by then, the ONLY abortions
being performed are for medical emergencies.) In fact, the
procedure that Anti-Choicers LYINGLY call "partial-birth
abortion" NEVER was. It is the MID-term procedure whose
REAL name is ID&E: intact Dilation and Extraction. Which
was almost always done around 4-1/2 MONTHS *before*
birth typically occurs. Anti-Choicers are almost universally
DEVOID of honest. And usually, too, of much in the way
of intelligence.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans; 83% of them:
-- In NO way condemns abortion.
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion.
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of RPEs as people.
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That it regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the import-
ance it ascribes to BIRTH order, BIRTHrights. and
first-BORNS.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths.
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization.
-- Thus making gametes (the Stage One RPEs) *equal*
in worth to the other three stages.
-- More than a QUADRILLION gametes are electively
aborted DAILY, worldwide... by *men.* All of
which had been *potential* and unique people.
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately.
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels.
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision.
-- Most women have NO regrets afterward.
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities to
PRE-ill-timed pregnancy levels. Immediately!
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy.
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16.
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term.
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later.
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out,
and those losing the chance to pursue many of the
future opportunities that they formerly had had.
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation.
-- Avoid bringing a child into a less-loving home.
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment.
-- Wait until timing is better before having children.
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved.
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home.
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods.
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals.
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful.
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions.
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973.
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them.
-- Between 1973 and 2008, 45 million abortions have been done.
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better .
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 had reached 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world, despite temporary fluctuations.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is normally QUITE strong, and will be again, once the current and
temporary worldwide recession has run its course. And a strong
U.S. economy benefits the entire world.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
huge
>> I am also pro-choice, but I think your arguments are the wrong
>> one It is better to stick to the actual arguments for choice than to
>> quote popularity statistics. Popularity does not in any way equate
>> with correctness.
>
> Okay. Here is a TON of solid facts that make dog meat of the
> stances of the Anti-Choicers. Feel free to draw from those to your
> heart's content:
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Much better, save for the parts about the Bible. I could not
care less about what the bible says; to convince
people of facts using mythology is a very odd thing
to do.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> (�`�.Craig Chilton.��) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> :
><SNP>
>> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
><SNP>
MOST of the WHINERS about abortion are PSEUDO-Christian RRR
cult lemmings. That portion is in there to show them that their stance
gets absolutely NO help from the Bible. The have NO leg to stand on.
Not even that.
duke
wrote:
>On Dec 2, 1:29�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 GMT, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)
>>
>> <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>> > � � Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>>
>> Normal people call them ABnormal.
>
>Only in the way that tall people are abnormal.
Wrong. A tall person is tall because of inherited genes. A queer is a queer
because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
IAAH
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:34:21 -0800 (PST), Firelock <firel...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 2, 1:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 GMT, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)
>>>
>>> <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>>>> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>>> Normal people call them ABnormal.
>> Only in the way that tall people are abnormal.
>
> Wrong. A tall person is tall because of inherited genes. A queer is a queer
> because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
I suppose asking you to provide proof of that is
as futile as asking you to provide proof of
anything, Dookie.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
Firelock
> On 12/3/09 2:46 PM, * duke wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 2, 1:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 GMT, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
>
> >>> <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
> >>>> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
> >>> Normal people call them ABnormal.
> >> Only in the way that tall people are abnormal.
>
> > Wrong. A tall person is tall because of inherited genes. A queer is a queer
> > because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
>
> I suppose asking you to provide proof of that is
> as futile as asking you to provide proof of
> anything, Dookie.
duck's not in the proof business.
--
Walt
leroy blue
It's no different than the outright lies and propaganda gay
activists spew. The Bible attempts to sell good. Gays promote
the worst sort of behavior between two living organisms
possible. Bible thumpers aren't trying to decriminalize sex
between adults and children. Gays are.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
SUBMORONIC BIGOT, BILL TAYLOR
(aka "leroy blue") <lero...@billon.net> wrote:
> Bible thumpers...
...are PSEUDO-Christians. The ANTITHESIS of Christianity.
Hateful and IGNORANT **BIGOTS** like YOU, Taylor. Mindless!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The PROVEN Dishonesty of Bill Taylor
(As compiled by the poster going by "No One.")
"Leroyblue", aka "bibon," aka Bill Taylor is a bigot who posts regularly
on a variety of newsgroups, and is noted for his lack of manners, his
hatred, his dishonesty, and a characteristic redneck patois that
creeps in every so often. Of course, he denies his real identity (and
the large number of aliases he's used). Since "leroyblue" is simply
his latest identity, most of his real gems will appaer under his
"bibon" and former identities.
This guy is completely shameless. In a post with message ID:
<news:ustel318uigdheu19...@4ax.com>, he fal-
sified a citation - a reply to his statement showed how (see the post
with Message ID <news:87r6i0m...@nospam.pacbell.net> for
the details).
See Message-ID:
<news:n5tn72l8p74cfv8vc...@4ax.com> for a
post in which bibon accidentally identified himself as Bill Taylor and
Message ID <news:m3d5dvp...@nospam.pacbell.net> for
details about how he identified himself. Basically, he claimed that
"Bill Taylor" never received a phone call from some individual, some-
thing only "Bill Taylor" could know, with the phone number in ques-
tion belonging to "our" "Bill Taylor". Others, of course, have
reached the same conclusion.
The really interesting question is why he is so sensitive about "Bill
Taylor" so much more so than all his other numerous identities. :-)
Some of his rantings are just comical. For example, in Message ID:
<news:2iell25bqiqgv16ir...@4ax.com>, one of Bill
Taylor's aliases "bi...@ralent.org (with a '^' over the 'a') posted an
inadvertent admission that he is gay enough to hire a male prostitute
(whether or not he intended to say that).
However, he's shown his dishonesty time and time again. For one
example, in Message ID
<news:skmio2d2lukbv2gkt...@4ax.com>, Bill Taylor
(aka bibon) was caught forging headers,changing "LC" to "LA" and "LB"
in headers he cut and pasted to pretend that "LC" was posting under
multiple identities. You can cross check this claim by using Google
to search for the message IDs. LC's post with Message ID:
<news:embji...@enews1.newsguy.com> was attributed by Bill
Taylor to "LA" (but Taylor suppressed part of the message ID by
giving it as <news:embjhn02...@enews1.newsguy.com> to make
tracing it difficult).
He also doesn't learn even when called on his behavior. In Message
ID <news:016tu2d0ksk24dsuc...@4ax.com>, bibon
(aka Bill Taylor) pretends a phrase in quotes was written in
<news:87ps7kj...@nospam.pacbell.net> yet it does not appear
there (<news:87ps7kj...@nospam.pacbell.net> is the message
ID of the post that he was responding to, as is clear from the headers
for his post). In message ID:
<news:dp22v21m779nvfjdc...@4ax.com> he tried
to cover it up by claiming it wasa "mistake", even though the "mistake"
occurred in quoted text (lines starting with '>') that were automatically
inserted by his newsreader. His claim of a "mistake" is as believable
as "my dog ate my homework". Then in a post with message ID:
<news:s4d4v29mamrmrstji...@4ax.com>, he tried to
pretend that he had merely snipped a post incorrectly, even though
the text in question never was in the one he quoted.
Such behavior gives zero credibility to any statment Bill Taylor (aka
bibon, aka ...) makes. You really have to wonder about someone
whowould post such a lie when it is so easily checked: just go to
<news:http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&> and copy
a message ID (do not include the '<' and '>') in the search string at
the bottom of the page, and click the "Lookup Message" button to
find an original post.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
duke
>On 12/3/09 2:46 PM, * duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:34:21 -0800 (PST), Firelock <firel...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 1:29 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 GMT, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)
>>>>
>>>> <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>>>>> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>>>> Normal people call them ABnormal.
>>> Only in the way that tall people are abnormal.
>>
>> Wrong. A tall person is tall because of inherited genes. A queer is a queer
>> because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
>
>I suppose asking you to provide proof of that is
>as futile as asking you to provide proof of
>anything, Dookie.
What's there to prove? The evidence is everywhere.
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:34:21 -0800 (PST), Firelock <firel...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Dec 2, 1:29�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 GMT, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���)
>>>
>>> <www.LayoffRemedy.com>" <x...@m.com> wrote:
>>> > � � Gays are perfectly NORMAL people
>>>
>>> Normal people call them ABnormal.
>>
>>Only in the way that tall people are abnormal.
>
>Wrong. A tall person is tall because of inherited genes.
Q.E.D.
> A queer is a queer
>because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar.
For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot
love God, whom he has not seen.
1 John 4:20
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> What's there to prove?
Your claims about gods, for one thing.
None of which you can prove.
duke
That's right, exactly as I'v stated all these years. Just like you can't prove
that you have thoughts.
duke
That's right. One cannot hate the way you atheists do, and claim to love God. I
love God and hate no man.
Ray Fischer
> Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> What's there to prove?
>>
>>Your claims about gods, for one thing.
>>None of which you can prove.
>
>That's right, exactly as I'v stated all these years.
Nobody can believe an admitted liar like you, puke. Even the Bible
says that you're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> A queer is a queer
>>>because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
>>
>> If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar.
>> For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot
>> love God, whom he has not seen.
>> 1 John 4:20
>
>That's right.
Thus you are a liar and you hate God.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Enos Penvy
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> A queer is a queer
> >>>because he is sick and has no sense of morality.
>
> >> If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar.
> >> For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot
> >> love God, whom he has not seen.
> >> 1 John 4:20
>
> >That's right.
>
> Thus you are a liar and you hate God.
oooh... God's gonna be plenty p.o.'d when he finds out about THAT.
duke
Where?
pnyikos
I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of deceitful deletia, but I don't
recall anything like the deceitful restoration that Chilton indulged
in here.
On Dec 2, 10:23 am, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>"
<x...@m.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 06:23:44 +0100 (CET),
>
> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >> And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. That
> >> is an ARTIFICIAL attribute
At this point, I inteposed with the following:
> > "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
> > Do you think this is one of the bogus verses of the Bible?
Chilton deceitfully restored the following OUT OF SEQUENCE before
displaying the above challenge:
>> > ascribed by, or accepted by, those
> >> wanting to ADD that to it. ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned
> >> and licensed -- and tens of millions of people have been married
> >> SECULARLY -- in NON-religious ceremonies, such as by judges,
> >> ship captains, justices-of-the-peace, etc.
Now comes a little bit that you also posted out of sequence, and
which I said EVEN before the bit I restored above:
> > Yet more suspicions about your alleged Christianity.
> What makes you think that Christians should be as CLYELESS as
> YOU are? Everything I just said is 100% TRUE, Even though, in
> cowardly fashion, you OMITTED most of that paragraph.
Whatever cowardice I am guilty of pales into insignificance compared
to yours. Here, I repeat the documentation above, IN ITS PROPER
ORDER:
> >> And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. That
> >> is an ARTIFICIAL attribute
> > Yet more suspicions about your alleged Christianity.
> > "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
> > Do you think this is one of the bogus verses of the Bible?
>
> The Bible is MEANINGLESS to at least 17% of the American
> people
You SCRAMBLED the order of things to make it look like THIS was the
issue. The issue, you shameless prevaricator, was you calling
something the Christian Bible ascribes to God ARTIFICIAL.
I can readily understand a non-Christian saying such a thing, but
you've got some tall explaining to do about how YOU can do that and
still call yourself a Christian.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
Lefty
Oh, we know it will be continued. For year after dreary year. You
can't claim you were a completely innocent victim and didn't try to
start up yet another running feud, either. When you accuse another
Christian of betraying his faith, them's fightin' words.
Is there any outspoken pro-choicer you ~don't~ want to instigate a
feud with? Must nearly every thread be polluted with your long-winded
expressions of pious outrage at the supposed behavior of others? I've
got no history with you to have anything against you personally, so I
can tell you that from a relatively unbiased outsider's POV that
you're being petulant all over the abortion groups. It would be okay
if it was entertaining, but it's too bitter and pathetic for that,
like an old man shouting and shaking his cane at the neighbors for
making too much noise.
Give it some thought, would you. It makes you look kind of crazy,
which is a shame, because you are capable of making good points, which
I suspect few people will notice because they're sick of your constant
drama.
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> again restored things out of sequence, but I've put them back in the proper sequence:
> >> ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned and licensed
> > Wrong, some religious marriages are entered into in defiance
> > of state decrees.
For example, polygamous marriages entered into by some cults.
> >> -- and tens
> >> millions of people have been married SECULARLY -- in NON-
> >> ceremonies, such as by judges, ship captains, justices-of-the-
> >> peace, etc.
NONE of those are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as far as
indissoluble marriage is concerned. Roman Catholics are free to
divorce and then get married in the Roman Catholic Church, provided
all previous marriages were merely civil.
> [[[ Again, I have *restored* that which you omitted. ]]]
Yes, but in the WRONG place. Note how hard it is to tell just what my
"Wrong" referred to the way YOU had things:
> >> ALL marriage are STATE-sanctioned and licensed -- and tens
> >> millions of people have been married SECULARLY -- in NON-
> >> ceremonies, such as by judges, ship captains, justices-of-the-
> >> peace, etc.
> > Wrong, some religious marriages are entered into in defiance
> > of state decrees.
Granted, someone reading it can figure out what it refers to if he
thinks hard enough about it--but that was NOT the case with the
flagrantly deceitful use to which you put your out-of-place
restorations when you evaded the issue of how YOU could be a Christian
and yet call ALL religious aspects to marriage "ARTIFICIAL" when Jesus
is depicted as saying, "What God has joined together, let no man put
asunder."
> >> [[[ Now HERE is the restored response about
> >> BIGOTS vis-a-vis actual Christians. ]]] ---
>
> >> Actually, those to whom he actually was referring are some of
> >> the most UN-Christian people on the planet.
> > Just which people was he referring to? If you mean all people who
> > oppose same-sex marriage, your own credentials as a Christian have
> > taken another nosedive.
>
> He referred to "Christers,"
Which of the following two things did he use it to refer to? this:
> which was a mistake many FAIR-minded
> people make who are not fully aware of the vast DIFFERENCE between
> being Christian,
or this:
> and being a hateful and ignorant PSEUDO-Christian of
> the RRR and LDS (and many in the RCC) cults.
And what meaning do you attach to the word "Christers"? I'm
unfamiliar with it.
> >> The RRR & LDS cultists, and millions of the RCC cultists -- ...
> > And what allows you to escape the same condemnation you are >
> > leveling below?
> FAIRNESS to people, vis-a-vis hatefulness.
Not to people wanting to preserve marriages when the spouse wants
out. You are against the repeal of no-fault divorce laws, yet you cry
"Unfair!" when people don't want to pass laws recognizing same-sex
marriages.
Get it? One partner wants very badly to stay married, yet you are
quite happy about that being denied, while two partners who can live
merrily together are supposed to be victims of bigotry if they cannot
get exactly the recognition they want.
TO BE CONCLUDED
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
<x...@m.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:18:23 -0800 (PST),
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> > ...and you present no irrefutable facts that significantly
> > support your claim:
>
> LYING certainly is your long suit.
I have much higher standards for my first accusation of lying than you
do. In case you haven't noticed, I have yet to accuse you of lying.
Anyway, I was referring to the following claim:
> >> Exposing the LIES that BIGOTS Spew About MARRIAGE
I stand by what I said. Let's see what FACTS you can marshal.
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:04:07 -0800 (PST),
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> >>>>> Homosexuals just took it upon themselves to find another
> >>>>> way to insult Christianity and the solemn vows of marriage.
> >>>> Gays are perfectly NORMAL people (just as left-handers and
> >>>> people with blue eyes are The sexual orientations are merely
> >>>> TRIVIAL variations of NORMALCY.
> >>> Irrelevant.
> >> Your obvious IGNORANCE is duly noted.
> > There is no ignorance in noting that sexual orientation has no
> > significant bearing on whether same-sex marriage is an insult to
> > Christianity and the solemn vows of *covenant* marriage.
>
> Yes there is because ALL supposed "covenant" and religious aspects
> attached to marriage are ARTIFICALLY-ascribed to it.
There you go again, alleging that Jesus's statement about "what God
has joined together" is something always ARTIFICIALLY ascribed to
marriage. Yet you call yourself a Christian!
> And THEN *only*
> when those involved CHOOSE such attributes. Who do NOT include the
> tens of millions of people who were (and are being) married CIVILLY in
> SECULAR circumstances... and the 17% of Americans to whom the Bible
> is both meaningless and worthless: The USA's **FIFTY MILLION** NON-
> Christians and NON-Jews.
Of which you seem to be one. Are Jesus's words alluded to above
meaningless and worthless TO YOU?
> No matter HOW much you may WISH that were different,
I never wished that, and if you think otherwise, you are making the
same mistake you made before in treating me like someone who hasn't
passed through several years of profound agnosticism, sometimes
bordering on atheism.
And yet, even back then, if someone had said what you said about
religious aspects of marriage, I would have seriously doubted their
commitment to Christian principles.
> there isn't
> one single damned thing you can do about that.
Nor is there a single damned thing YOU can do about it, to continue
belaboring the obvious.
> >>> Their orientation may be normal (but then, would you call an
> >>> orientation towards bestiality or necrphilia normal?) but some of
> >>> their behavior is over the top, just like a lot of behavior of people
> >>> of all races, genders and creeds is over the top.
> >> (1) Both bestiality and necrophilia are so RARE as to be an
> >> irrelevant thing for you to be trying to employ as a basis
> >> of comparison... besides being HARMLESS, unless an
> >> animal is hurt.
> > As rare as less than [5%] of the number who have homosexual
> > orientation? Do you have facts to back this up?
Evidently you do not, because you just keep pounding the table:
> 5% is **FIFTEEN MILLION** Americans. How often do you hear
> of cases of bestiality or necrophilia?
About as often as I heard of cases of homosexuality forty years ago.
Actual individual cases, not cases in textbooks. It wasn't
publicized, for obvious reasons.
> (Keep CLUTCHING at those
> straws, bigot. It's funnier than hell to watch!!)
Keep pounding the table, fool. It's funny to see you unable to pound
any FACTS about relative frequency. [Are you familiar with the old
lawyers' adage?]
And yet, you act as though FACTS were your strong suit. See way, way
above, where you accuse me of lying for saying you advance no facts
that significantly support your claim. Funny, isn't it?
pnyikos
Begging the question. Chilton CALLS himself a Christian, but he is
very outspoken about people HE claims aren't Christian but who call
themselves Christian.
As he sows, so he shall reap.
> Is there any outspoken pro-choicer you ~don't~ want to instigate a
> feud with?
Sure. Most of the feuds I get into are instigated by others. Ask the
Chief Instigator about WHO instigated a feud between us back in March.
But to answer your question another way, there are some outspoken pro-
choicers I am on good terms with, and hope to stay that way.
Sexkitten, for one. Bill Mosco was once an outspoken pro-choicer [now
he posts on other things] but I've always been on good terms with
him. I was on very good terms with quite a few outspoken pro-choicers
in 1992-1994. Would you like a list?
[supposedly objective critique deleted, will discuss if you insist]
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 2, 7:48�pm, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>"
><x...@m.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:18:23 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > �(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>> > � ...and you present no irrefutable facts that significantly
>> > support your claim:
>>
>> � � �LYING certainly is your long suit.
>
>I have much higher standards for my first accusation of lying
No you don't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Lefty
So you're claiming it's begging the question because it's not
established as fact that he's a Christian?
That can't be established factually. It's a philosophy, the meaning of
which differs from person to person.
> As he sows, so he shall reap.
You see it as your duty to punish supposedly wayward Christians?
> > Is there any outspoken pro-choicer you ~don't~ want to instigate a
> > feud with?
>
> Sure. Most of the feuds I get into are instigated by others. Ask the
> Chief Instigator about WHO instigated a feud between us back in March.
>
> But to answer your question another way, there are some outspoken pro-
> choicers I am on good terms with, and hope to stay that way.
> Sexkitten, for one. Bill Mosco was once an outspoken pro-choicer [now
> he posts on other things] but I've always been on good terms with
> him. I was on very good terms with quite a few outspoken pro-choicers
> in 1992-1994. Would you like a list?
>
> [supposedly objective critique deleted, will discuss if you insist]
My complaint here, and I believed I've made that clear elsewhere as
well, is that you are ruining multiple interesting threads with petty
bickering which is mostly, at this time, instigated by you. I don't
give a shit what happened in March between you and some other dude
because right now, you are the problem.
pnyikos
> On Dec 9, 12:20 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 11:26 pm, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 8, 5:58 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In my roughly ten years of Usenet posting (roughly 9 in 1992-2001)
> > > > I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of deceitful deletia, but I don't
> > > > recall anything like the deceitful restoration that Chilton indulged
> > > > in here.
>
> > > > On Dec 2, 10:23 am, "(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>"
[Nyikos:]
> > > > Whatever cowardice I am guilty of pales into insignificance compared
> > > > to yours. Here, I repeat the documentation above, IN ITS PROPER
> > > > ORDER:
>
> > > > > >> And there is NO required religious aspect to marriage. That
> > > > > >> is an ARTIFICIAL attribute
.
> > > > > > Yet more suspicions about your alleged Christianity.
> > > > > > "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."
> > > > > > Do you think this is one of the bogus verses of the Bible?
>
> > > > > The Bible is MEANINGLESS to at least 17% of the American
> > > > > people
>
> > > > You SCRAMBLED the order of things to make it look like THIS was the
> > > > issue. The issue, you shameless prevaricator, was you calling
> > > > something the Christian Bible ascribes to God ARTIFICIAL.
>
> > > > I can readily understand a non-Christian saying such a thing, but
> > > > you've got some tall explaining to do about how YOU can do that and
> > > > still call yourself a Christian.
>
> > > > TO BE CONTINUED
>
> > > Oh, we know it will be continued. For year after dreary year.
Don't exaggerate, Lefty. By the way, I'm assuming you are NOT the
Lefty who posted to talk.abortion in 1992-1993. Am I right?
> > >You
> > > can't claim you were a completely innocent victim and didn't try to
> > > start up yet another running feud, either.
In this case, I did initiate the festivities, for reasons I am trying
to explain below.
>When you accuse another
> > > Christian of betraying his faith, them's fightin' words.
>
> > Begging the question. Chilton CALLS himself a Christian, but he is
> > very outspoken about people HE claims aren't Christian but who call
> > themselves Christian.
>
> So you're claiming it's begging the question because it's not
> established as fact that he's a Christian?
No, my standards are not that demanding. What I want to learn in the
short run is whether Chilton subscribes to any Christian standards for
marriage as far as his own practice and what he tells others is
concerned. ...
> That can't be established factually. It's a philosophy, the meaning of
> which differs from person to person.
... and what I'm trying to suss out in the long run is what being a
Christian MEANS to Chilton. If ALL it means is endorsing purely
secular standards of morality and life and treating all that is unique
to Christianity as "ARTIFICIAL" then in my book he is not a Christian.
Would he be one in yours?
>
> > As he sows, so he shall reap.
>
> You see it as your duty to punish supposedly wayward Christians?
If you read the post in which I actually ask whether Chilton is a
Christian in the Subject: line, it should be clear that the answer is
no.
I crave justice and truth, and if Chilton is not a Christian, then he
has been posting under false pretenses, massively and aggressively
asserting that true Christianity requires a complete endorsement of
Gay Power and radical abortion rights.
If he were not claiming to be a Christian and claiming that he is
espousing true Christian values, he would lose almost all the
effectiveness he has in the newsgroups he is crossposting to here,
except perhaps alt.atheism, where he would fit in very well from all
that I've seen of him.
But even there, he would be just another dime-a-dozen twit posting
things that others can say better than he.
We had someone like that in talk.abortion in the mid-1990's. His name
was Jamie Gregorian and he claimed to be an ordained minister [*sic*]
in the Armenian Apistolic [*sic*!!!] Church and spewed all kinds of
garbage about what God wants for pregnant women.
About a year after he quit the newsgroup he posted elsewhere that he'd
gotten his "ordination" from a cheap diploma mill and had a good laugh
about how he had fooled "everyone" although there were some of us who
had not been fooled--but he was doing so much damage while he was with
us that several of us felt impelled to spend a great deal of time
refuting his lies and explaining why he couldn't be what he claimed to
be.
> > > Is there any outspoken pro-choicer you ~don't~ want to instigate a
> > > feud with?
>
> > Sure. Most of the feuds I get into are instigated by others. Ask the
> > Chief Instigator about WHO instigated a feud between us back in March.
>
> > But to answer your question another way, there are some outspoken pro-
> > choicers I am on good terms with, and hope to stay that way.
> > Sexkitten, for one. Bill Mosco was once an outspoken pro-choicer [now
> > he posts on other things] but I've always been on good terms with
> > him. I was on very good terms with quite a few outspoken pro-choicers
> > in 1992-1994. Would you like a list?
Would you? You realize, don't you, that if you say you do NOT want
to see a list, it will ruin most of your claims to objectivity.
If you simply leave the question unanswered again, I will not hold
that against you.
> > [supposedly objective critique deleted, will discuss if you insist]
>
> My complaint here, and I believed I've made that clear elsewhere as
> well, is that you are ruining multiple interesting threads with petty
> bickering
Are you reading any of the exclusively talk.abortion/alt.abortion
threads? If you are only reading threads that are crossposted to
alt.atheism, you are looking at a highly biased sample and getting the
exact opposite conclusion than you should be getting.
Let me ask you this: have you EVER seen James G. Keegan, Jr.
*discussing* abortion, as opposed to posting abortion-related articles
others have written? I don't mean personal attacks falsely accusing
people of abortion related things, like his utterly false accusation
that I equate abortion with murder. I mean actual discussion such as
what you and I are having here.
>which is mostly, at this time, instigated by you.
False. But you may be sincere here, see above.
>I don't
> give a shit what happened in March between you and some other dude
> because right now, you are the problem.
And Chilton isn't? Do you enjoy reading his feuds with others as long
as he seems to be on the winning side?
Peter Nyikos
Lefty
Correct.
> > > >You
>
> > > > can't claim you were a completely innocent victim and didn't try to
> > > > start up yet another running feud, either.
>
> In this case, I did initiate the festivities, for reasons I am trying
> to explain below.
>
> >When you accuse another
> > > > Christian of betraying his faith, them's fightin' words.
>
> > > Begging the question. Chilton CALLS himself a Christian, but he is
> > > very outspoken about people HE claims aren't Christian but who call
> > > themselves Christian.
>
> > So you're claiming it's begging the question because it's not
> > established as fact that he's a Christian?
>
> No, my standards are not that demanding. What I want to learn in the
> short run is whether Chilton subscribes to any Christian standards for
> marriage as far as his own practice and what he tells others is
> concerned. ...
So you want to know if his marriage meets your version of Christian
standards? As if he's going to discuss such private matters just
because you demand he do so.
You don't seem to see how petulant you are being by making such
demands, then getting angry when people don't comply.
> > That can't be established factually. It's a philosophy, the meaning of
> > which differs from person to person.
>
> ... and what I'm trying to suss out in the long run is what being a
> Christian MEANS to Chilton. If ALL it means is endorsing purely
> secular standards of morality and life and treating all that is unique
> to Christianity as "ARTIFICIAL" then in my book he is not a Christian.
To me, one is a Christian if one follows the teachings of Christ. You?
> Would he be one in yours?
I don't know if he follows the teachings of Christ or not. Do you?
Perhaps he works in soup kitchens and helps sick people in his spare
time. Being Christ-like, to me, is about what you do in terms of the
virtues of charity, kindness, etc. It is not about what you preach on
usenet.
> > > As he sows, so he shall reap.
>
> > You see it as your duty to punish supposedly wayward Christians?
>
> If you read the post in which I actually ask whether Chilton is a
> Christian in the Subject: line, it should be clear that the answer is
> no.
Why should it?
> I crave justice and truth,
Self-aggrandizing, pious noise. You crave flame wars. Just admit it.
>and if Chilton is not a Christian, then he
> has been posting under false pretenses, massively and aggressively
> asserting that true Christianity requires a complete endorsement of
> Gay Power and radical abortion rights.
He can define his own belief system any way he chooses, as can you or
anyone else. You are not the ultimate authority on such matters.
> If he were not claiming to be a Christian and claiming that he is
> espousing true Christian values, he would lose almost all the
> effectiveness he has in the newsgroups he is crossposting to here,
> except perhaps alt.atheism, where he would fit in very well from all
> that I've seen of him.
Because Christianity is a monolithic, unvaried philosophy which you
alone get to define? Nope. there are plenty of Christians who have
similar views to his.
Ever hear of the United Church, for example? Very large, very liberal
organization here in Canada.
Info here;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ucc.htm
> But even there, he would be just another dime-a-dozen twit posting
> things that others can say better than he.
Like everybody else here, including you and I. Get over yourself.
> We had someone like that in talk.abortion in the mid-1990's. His name
> was Jamie Gregorian and he claimed to be an ordained minister [*sic*]
> in the Armenian Apistolic [*sic*!!!] Church and spewed all kinds of
> garbage about what God wants for pregnant women.
>
> About a year after he quit the newsgroup he posted elsewhere that he'd
> gotten his "ordination" from a cheap diploma mill and had a good laugh
> about how he had fooled "everyone" although there were some of us who
> had not been fooled--but he was doing so much damage while he was with
> us that several of us felt impelled to spend a great deal of time
> refuting his lies and explaining why he couldn't be what he claimed to
> be.
Does Chilton claim to be ordained? If not, I don't see the comparison.
> > > > Is there any outspoken pro-choicer you ~don't~ want to instigate a
> > > > feud with?
>
> > > Sure. Most of the feuds I get into are instigated by others. Ask the
> > > Chief Instigator about WHO instigated a feud between us back in March.
>
> > > But to answer your question another way, there are some outspoken pro-
> > > choicers I am on good terms with, and hope to stay that way.
> > > Sexkitten, for one. Bill Mosco was once an outspoken pro-choicer [now
> > > he posts on other things] but I've always been on good terms with
> > > him. I was on very good terms with quite a few outspoken pro-choicers
> > > in 1992-1994. Would you like a list?
>
> Would you? You realize, don't you, that if you say you do NOT want
> to see a list, it will ruin most of your claims to objectivity.
That presumes I'm not taking your word for it and require proof. I
didn't respond because I am taking your word for it, primarily to
avoid the need to read a gazillion posts from fifteen or more years
ago.
> If you simply leave the question unanswered again, I will not hold
> that against you.
Nor should you ever hold anything against me. I'm nobody to you,
right?
> > > [supposedly objective critique deleted, will discuss if you insist]
>
> > My complaint here, and I believed I've made that clear elsewhere as
> > well, is that you are ruining multiple interesting threads with petty
> > bickering
>
> Are you reading any of the exclusively talk.abortion/alt.abortion
> threads? If you are only reading threads that are crossposted to
> alt.atheism, you are looking at a highly biased sample and getting the
> exact opposite conclusion than you should be getting.
Yes to the former. Sample appears to be clean, but as I said in
another thread, it's only a sample of recent posts.
> Let me ask you this: have you EVER seen James G. Keegan, Jr.
> *discussing* abortion, as opposed to posting abortion-related articles
> others have written? I don't mean personal attacks falsely accusing
> people of abortion related things, like his utterly false accusation
> that I equate abortion with murder. I mean actual discussion such as
> what you and I are having here.
Yes I have. I'll allow that he doesn't discuss the issue with ~you~
without lapsing into flaming, but you aren't the only poster who
discusses abortion.
> >which is mostly, at this time, instigated by you.
>
> False. But you may be sincere here, see above.
I am sincere and believe it is true.
> >I don't
> > give a shit what happened in March between you and some other dude
> > because right now, you are the problem.
>
> And Chilton isn't? Do you enjoy reading his feuds with others as long
> as he seems to be on the winning side?
I ignore them. His feuds are mostly with trolls who are beyond
reasoning with. I thought perhaps you could be reasoned with. It's not
like there's any use trying to get Chilton to stop egging on creeps
like Duke and Bill Taylor. He clearly loves it. Plus, I'd be a
hypocrite expecting him to because I've enabled Duke and J Young
myself. I do try to keep my flame-baiting out of interesting threads
and confined to troll-created threads or specific flame threads,
though. That's all I'd ask of you. Could you maybe start Chilton-
bashing, Keegan-bashing etc. threads for this stuff most of the time,
or keep it in stupid troll threads? I don't think it's an unreasonable
request.
pnyikos
> > > > >You
> > > > > can't claim you were a completely innocent victim and didn't try to
> > > > > start up yet another running feud, either.
>
> > In this case, I did initiate the festivities, for reasons I am trying
> > to explain below.
This has to do with questioning the claim that he is a Christian. If
you are referring to who got nasty with whom first, let's not forget
that Chilton has repeatedly called me a bigot, used his infamous
"troll" ASCII picture against me at least once, repeatedly uses four
inappropriate and derogatory adjectives to describe my corrections to
his Tiller .sig, and claimed that lying is my long suit.
In contrast, I have refrained from accusing him of lying, and was
quite cordial to him in almost all my posts up to about a week ago.
The one exception that I recall was a post where he talked about
censorship in a way remarkably reminiscent of the way Mao Zedong
talked about it: complete freedom of speech for everyone except
opponents of the revolution. I quoted to him from the Consitution of
Cambodia under the Khrmer Rouge, which said in one line that freedom
of religion was granted everyone--and in the next line that all
reactionary religions are forbidden. My partly tongue-in-cheek
comment to that was:
"All reactionary religions"--as in the RRR cult, eh, Comrade
Chilton?
I wasn't really accusing him of being a Communist--the pun on "Conrad
Hilton" was too good for me to resist the temptation, and I think he's
run across it before, because he didn't complain.
> > >When you accuse another
> > > > > Christian of betraying his faith, them's fightin' words.
>
> > > > Begging the question. Chilton CALLS himself a Christian, but he is
> > > > very outspoken about people HE claims aren't Christian but who call
> > > > themselves Christian.
>
> > > So you're claiming it's begging the question because it's not
> > > established as fact that he's a Christian?
By the way, it is DEFINITELY not established fact that any but a
handful of the RRR cult are NOT Christians, yet he loudly trumpets
that they are not. I haven't gone that far, and won't go that far
with him until he's had a chance to explain himself.
> > No, my standards are not that demanding. What I want to learn in the
> > short run is whether Chilton subscribes to any Christian standards for
> > marriage as far as his own practice and what he tells others is
> > concerned. ...
>
> So you want to know if his marriage meets your version of Christian
> standards?
No.
> As if he's going to discuss such private matters just
> because you demand he do so.
He made a very significant statement in public. The public deserves
an explanation.
> You don't seem to see how petulant you are being by making such
> demands,
You seem to be abandoning all pretense at objectivity, the way you
keep answering your own questions without waiting for an answer from
me.
That might be a reasonable attitude, were I anything like what I call
the Seven Musketeers, but I've tried very hard to be reasonable with
you, and you are not reciprocating.
>then getting angry when people don't comply.
Just what did you have in mind when you made this last remark?
Peter Nyikos
Lefty
I figured as much, but in my view, accusing somebody of betraying his
faith is a low being flamed with the usual "bigot" and "troll" can't
compare to. To most people of faith, it is a sacred aspect of their
person. It's somewhat akin to telling a man deeply in love that he
actually treats his woman like a whore, or a blissful new mother that
she's really a child abuser.
> In contrast, I have refrained from accusing him of lying, and was
> quite cordial to him in almost all my posts up to about a week ago.
Good for you, then. Chilton's behavior can be understood if you
recognize that he's a purely political animal. He responds to people
on here not as people but as the embodiment of a political POV. If he
likes that POV, he's nice to you. If not, you're a troll and a bigot.
I think he basically means well and just likes to have fun at the
expense of right wingers. So do I, so how can I possibly be critical?
> The one exception that I recall was a post where he talked about
> censorship in a way remarkably reminiscent of the way Mao Zedong
> talked about it: complete freedom of speech for everyone except
> opponents of the revolution. I quoted to him from the Consitution of
> Cambodia under the Khrmer Rouge, which said in one line that freedom
> of religion was granted everyone--and in the next line that all
> reactionary religions are forbidden. My partly tongue-in-cheek
> comment to that was:
>
> "All reactionary religions"--as in the RRR cult, eh, Comrade
> Chilton?
>
> I wasn't really accusing him of being a Communist--the pun on "Conrad
> Hilton" was too good for me to resist the temptation, and I think he's
> run across it before, because he didn't complain.
Ha! I almost missed the pun.
> > > >When you accuse another
> > > > > > Christian of betraying his faith, them's fightin' words.
>
> > > > > Begging the question. Chilton CALLS himself a Christian, but he is
> > > > > very outspoken about people HE claims aren't Christian but who call
> > > > > themselves Christian.
>
> > > > So you're claiming it's begging the question because it's not
> > > > established as fact that he's a Christian?
>
> By the way, it is DEFINITELY not established fact that any but a
> handful of the RRR cult are NOT Christians, yet he loudly trumpets
> that they are not. I haven't gone that far, and won't go that far
> with him until he's had a chance to explain himself.
>
> > > No, my standards are not that demanding. What I want to learn in the
> > > short run is whether Chilton subscribes to any Christian standards for
> > > marriage as far as his own practice and what he tells others is
> > > concerned. ...
>
> > So you want to know if his marriage meets your version of Christian
> > standards?
>
> No.
>
> > As if he's going to discuss such private matters just
> > because you demand he do so.
>
> He made a very significant statement in public. The public deserves
> an explanation.
I'll resist the temptation to be nosy.
> > You don't seem to see how petulant you are being by making such
> > demands,
>
> You seem to be abandoning all pretense at objectivity, the way you
> keep answering your own questions without waiting for an answer from
> me.
How do you mean?
I do tend to speculate a lot, but that's not the the same as what
you're suggesting. Let me clarify; it is is my belief that you may be
perceived as petulant and that this quality makes people respond to
you in a negative way, worsening the problems you are having here.
Better?
> That might be a reasonable attitude, were I anything like what I call
> the Seven Musketeers, but I've tried very hard to be reasonable with
> you, and you are not reciprocating.
I thought I was being reasonable. Have I insulted you? No. Made
threats or demands? No. See, that's the kind of hypersensitivity that
can lead to feuds.
> >then getting angry when people don't comply.
>
> Just what did you have in mind when you made this last remark?
There you go again. You really don't see how hostile that comes
across, do you? Look at how you've phrased it. It's like a father
angrily demanding an explanation of a wayward son when he finds a bong
in his room; "just what is meaning of THIS?!"
What I'm saying is that the way you respond to people contributes to
how they respond to you. Isn't that right?