Say goodbye to Duwayne and his infantile questions
drahcir
Duwaynea Anderson
> http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
Genocide is, simply, a crime against humanity. It's unimaginable that
any person could support or condone genocide, but amazingly there are
people that do just that.
Let's take a brief rundown of the gang of shame. With regard to the
question: "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide," here is how the
gang of shame stacks up:
1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
it every time.
3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
eating Palestinians:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
post of June 2, 2009
6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time.
7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time. Says s/he won’t condemn genocide because it “irritates”
me. Calls the question “childish” See it’s post of June 17, 2009, and
also the post from June 26, 2009 at the second hyperlink (below):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/384adca6fe6388fc?scoring=d&
Later explained that “"killing children" taken as prisoners of war
cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person other than a lying
idiot like you.”
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.israel/msg/e7849331106e1911
You'd think we'd learn from history. You'd think that after the
holocaust we'd understand, as people, the evils of genocide. What a
shame there is this gang.
DoD
The guy is a childish bigot, but I don't think we are going to have
the pleasure in saying goodbye to him anytime soon...
<sigh>
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 1:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
> Genocide is, simply, a crime against humanity. It's unimaginable that
> any person could support or condone genocide, but amazingly there are
> people that do just that.
Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
stupid question, so we are making progress. On to the first. Genocide
is one of those things that's apparently in the eye of the beholder.
For example, Israel has been repeatedly accused of genocide when the
word, according to the dictionary, has no application to anything she
has ever done. It is certainly not inconceivable that Israel COULD, if
she wanted, genocide the arabs, but I don't believe that will happen
no matter how hard she is pushed. Israel has never so much as hinted
at genocide, although the arabs and other muslims have repeatedly
threatened genocide against her.
The problem with unconditional condemnation is that one is then
committing oneself to condemn regardless of circumstance. For
instance, if the UN accuses Israel of genocide just because those
voting on the measure are anti-Israel, an unconditional condemner
would then have to condemn regardless of whether he believed it to be
a genocide. Of course, there are unusual but imaginable scenarios that
also preclude unconditional condemnation. I personally prefer to
choose whether or not to condemn according to the conditions and
whether I feel genocide in fact exists. I can say that if I perceive a
genocidal situation that is not warranted, I would certainly condemn.
Of course, little children like you can't grapple with that - you want
black or white.
>
> Let's take a brief rundown of the gang of shame. With regard to the
> question: "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide," here is how the
> gang of shame stacks up:
<snip>
>
> 7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
> every time.
You're a liar, Du. Everyone in this group knows that the answers were
provided many posts ago.
This is getting a bit surreal, with my answer there for all to see,
and you continuing to deny the answer exists. Here, allow me to remind
you:
> Now it's your turn to answer my questions (which you have doged for
> weeks)
> 1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
> 2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
> taken as prisoners of war?
> Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
> Why won't you?
Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
Regarding genocide, it seems that whenever Israel tries to defend
herself, she is accused of genocide. So your request for unconditional
condemnation is ridiculous - the "condition" of condemnation would be
determined by the circumstances as well as the definition of
"genocide".
Any other questions today, du?
Says s/he won’t condemn genocide because it “irritates”
> me. Calls the question “childish” See it’s post of June 17, 2009, and
> also the post from June 26, 2009 at the second hyperlink (below):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
drahcir
Just wait.
Duwaynea Anderson
It's amazing how much consternation and knashing of teeth been stirred
up by these simple questions:
fla...@verizon.net
On 15-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:47�pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 1:19�pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
> >
> > Genocide is, simply, a crime against humanity. �It's unimaginable that
> > any person could support or condone genocide, but amazingly there are
> > people that do just that.
>
> Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
> stupid question, so we are making progress.
But bow he's moving on to Lie #2 - that those he lies
about not having "anseered his questions" now
*condone* the crap he tried to project onto us.
Susan
drahcir
I don't know about other posters here, but poor Duwayne is freaking
out with me, pretending I haven't answered the infantile questions
that I not only have, but also have repeatedly pasted those answers
when he repeats the questions, resulting only in him asking them yet
again. I'd nominate Du as perhaps the oddest egg we have ever seen
here. Here's proof of what I mean:
DoD
I don't see any knashing of teeth.....
Smiler
> On Jul 15, 1:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
When did you stop beating your wife?
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
fla...@verizon.net
Only on his part, that the answers he gets don't kowtow
to his bigotry in pretending that those who expose it
even need to be asked it in the first place, but further
entangle him in it, instead.
Susan
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 15, 5:47 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 1:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
> > Genocide is, simply, a crime against humanity. It's unimaginable that
> > any person could support or condone genocide, but amazingly there are
> > people that do just that.
>
> Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
> stupid question,
Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
they've taken as prisoners of war?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 15, 6:10 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 3:02 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
> > > The guy is a childish bigot,
> > > but I don't think we are going to have
> > > the pleasure in saying goodbye to him anytime soon...
>
> > > <sigh>
>
> > It's amazing how much consternation and knashing of teeth been stirred
> > up by these simple questions:
>
> > 1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
> > 2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
> > taken as prisoners of war?
>
> I don't know about other posters here, but poor Duwayne is freaking
> out with me, pretending I haven't answered the infantile questions
> that I not only have, but also have repeatedly pasted those answers
> when he repeats the questions, resulting only in him asking them yet
> again.
What was your answer to this question:
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
they've taken as prisoners of war?
Duwaynea Anderson
It's a figurative term, of course, meaning frustration. If the
questions were really "stupid" they'd be ignored, or summarily
dispatched with logic and reason.
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they've
taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would. But there's an abundance of posters
in these various groups that refuse.
With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
genocide," here is how the gang of shame stacks up:
1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
it every time.
3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
eating Palestinians:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
post of June 2, 2009
6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time.
7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time. Says s/he won’t condemn genocide because it “irritates”
me. Calls the question “childish” See it’s post of June 17, 2009, and
also the post from June 26, 2009 at the second hyperlink (below):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/384adca6fe6388fc?scoring=d&
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 3:08 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 15, 5:47 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 1:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
> > > Genocide is, simply, a crime against humanity. It's unimaginable that
> > > any person could support or condone genocide, but amazingly there are
> > > people that do just that.
>
> > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
> > stupid question,
>
> Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
> > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
> Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> they've taken as prisoners of war?
See above. And below. And in 10 other posts in the last 24 hours.
You can continue asking, Du, and I will continue pasting the reply.
Does that sound reasonable?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 4:03 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 6:10 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 3:02 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
> > > > The guy is a childish bigot,
> > > > but I don't think we are going to have
> > > > the pleasure in saying goodbye to him anytime soon...
>
> > > > <sigh>
>
> > > It's amazing how much consternation and knashing of teeth been stirred
> > > up by these simple questions:
>
> > > 1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
> > > 2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
> > > taken as prisoners of war?
>
> > I don't know about other posters here, but poor Duwayne is freaking
> > out with me, pretending I haven't answered the infantile questions
> > that I not only have, but also have repeatedly pasted those answers
> > when he repeats the questions, resulting only in him asking them yet
> > again.
>
> What was your answer to this question:
>
> Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> they've taken as prisoners of war?
Nope. Twelfth time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
> > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
drahcir
>
> 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> it every time.
>
> 3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
> execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
>
>
> 4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
> ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
> eating Palestinians:
>
>
> 5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
> wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
> post of June 2, 2009
>
>
> 6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
> every time.
>
> 7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
> every time.
PROOF Du is a liar:
*********
You're a liar, Du. Everyone in this group knows that the answers were
provided many posts ago.
This is getting a bit surreal, with my answer there for all to see,
and you continuing to deny the answer exists. "
etc., etc., etc.
Alzheimers affects short term memory, du. You have requested the same
"specificity" in the last 24 hours perhaps 10 times. I think most
here would share my concern for your well-being, and request that you
seek medical attention immediately, before you hurt yourself or a
loved one.
dsharavi
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
>>On Jul 15, 3:08 pm, drahcir wrote:
>>>Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
>>>stupid question,
>
>On Jul 16, 9:52 am, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
>
On Jul 16, 7:18 am, drahcir wrote:
>LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
>
>>>Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
>>>except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
>>>children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
>>>logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
>>>prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
>>>other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
>>>callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
>>>bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
>>>where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
>>>bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
>>Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
>>they've taken as prisoners of war?
>
>See above. And below. And in 10 other posts in the last 24 hours.
>
>You can continue asking, Du, and I will continue pasting the reply.
>Does that sound reasonable?
Paste a repeated question, get the same repeated answer.
Deborah
>>>so we are making progress. On to the first. Genocide
>>>is one of those things that's apparently in the eye of the beholder.
>>>For example, Israel has been repeatedly accused of genocide when the
>>>word, according to the dictionary, has no application to anything she
>>>has ever done. It is certainly not inconceivable that Israel COULD, if
>>>she wanted, genocide the arabs, but I don't believe that will happen
>>>no matter how hard she is pushed. Israel has never so much as hinted
>>>at genocide, although the arabs and other muslims have repeatedly
>>>threatened genocide against her.
>
>>>The problem with unconditional condemnation is that one is then
>>>committing oneself to condemn regardless of circumstance. For
>>>instance, if the UN accuses Israel of genocide just because those
>>>voting on the measure are anti-Israel, an unconditional condemner
>>>would then have to condemn regardless of whether he believed it to be
>>>a genocide. Of course, there are unusual but imaginable scenarios that
>>>also preclude unconditional condemnation. I personally prefer to
>>>choose whether or not to condemn according to the conditions and
>>>whether I feel genocide in fact exists. I can say that if I perceive a
>>>genocidal situation that is not warranted, I would certainly condemn.
>>>Of course, little children like you can't grapple with that - you want
>>>black or white.
>>>Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
drahcir
I guess what's going through his "mind" at this stage is that if he
keeps acting like an alzheimers patient, repeating his answered
question, maybe I'll eventually give up. He don't know be vewy well,
do he?
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> 5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
> wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
> post of June 2, 2009
Michael
dsharavi
> I guess what's going through his "mind" at this stage is that if he
> keeps acting like an alzheimers patient, repeating his answered
> question, maybe I'll eventually give up.
What he should do is grow up.
>He don't know be vewy well, do he?
You wascally wabbit.
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
> > > stupid question,
> >
> > Hardly. �Are you still going to ignore it?
>
> LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
matter how many times you answer him. You are
by no means the only one to whom he does this.
Yes, I know you are rubbing his snout in his lies by
repeating your answer - but he is deluded into thinking
he's making you jump through hoops.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 7) �Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. �Dodges or ignores it
> > every time. �
>
> PROOF Du is a liar:
> *********
> You're a liar, Du. Everyone in this group knows that the answers were
> provided many posts ago.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
AndI bet that you or Deborah or anyone else could
also tell him what *I* said, too - not that it would
keep him from continually lying about it, anyway.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> LIED:
> 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> it every time.
Except that I answered it MONTHS ago, & you have
has LIED about it EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the
answer indicted you as you deserved.
What follows is the first time I deigned to
dignify your projecting. Please note the date:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e317e7e0235aaa79?dmode=source
Susan
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > > other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
> > > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
> > Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> > they've taken as prisoners of war?
>
> See above. And below. And in 10 other posts in the last 24 hours.
That response isn't specific to the new question. Read the new
question carefully:
Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they've
taken as prisoners of war?
Do you want to go on record saying *that* question "cannot be
unconditionally condemned by any person other than a lying idiot like
you."
> You can continue asking, Du, and I will continue pasting the reply.
That's fine. I want you to dodge the question -- it illustrates the
point I'm making.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> > they've taken as prisoners of war?
>
> Nope.
Excellent. Thanks for answering. See your answer, summarized with
the rest of the gang of shame, below:
With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
genocide," here is how the gang of shame stacks up:
1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
it every time.
3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
eating Palestinians:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
post of June 2, 2009
6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time.
7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time. Says s/he won’t condemn genocide because it “irritates”
me. Calls the question “childish” See it’s post of June 17, 2009, and
also the post from June 26, 2009 at the second hyperlink (below):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/384adca6fe6388fc?scoring=d&
Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
as prisoners of war?”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
You'd think we'd learn from history. You'd think that after the
holocaust we'd understand, as people, the evils of genocide. What a
shame there is this gang.
> Twelfth time:
Duwaynea Anderson
You did reply to the question "Do you unconditionally condemn killing
children that have been taken as prisoners of war."
You said only a "liar" would do that.
Then, when I asked if you "unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill
children they've taken as prisoners of war," you replied "Nope."
I don't recall a direct answer from you regarding genocide, though.
But given your answers to the above questions, it seems your answer to
the question "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide" is a solid
"No."
Is that correct?
Let me know, and I'll update your status in the "gang of shame."
Duwaynea Anderson
What is the difference, objectively, between someone that kills
because the Bible tells them to, and someone that kills because the
Koran tells them to?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
> > > > stupid question,
>
> > > Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
>
> > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
>
> You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> matter how many times you answer him.
Susan, you seem to thing the game is to answer, not to give the right
answer.
When I asked drahcir "Do you unconditionally condemns soldiers that
kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?”
He replied "Nope."
Is that your answer too, Susan?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> LIED:
>
> > 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> > it every time.
>
> Except that I answered it MONTHS ago,
That's what you say, but you refuse to say what the answer was (just
as you have done here) or to post a link to the "answer"
And you've yet to answer this question at all:
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
they've taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would, Susan.
Why won't you?
> & you have
> has LIED about it EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the
> answer indicted you as you deserved.
>
> What follows is the first time I deigned to
> dignify your projecting. Please note the date:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e317e7e0235aaa79?dmode...
>
> Susan
DoD
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 4:06 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 5:10 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 3:02 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
>
> > > > The guy is a childish bigot,
> > > > but I don't think we are going to have
> > > > the pleasure in saying goodbye to him anytime soon...
>
> > > > <sigh>
>
> > > It's amazing how much consternation and knashing of teeth been stirred
> > > up by these simple questions:
>
> > > 1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
> > > 2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
> > > taken as prisoners of war?
>
> > I don't see any knashing of teeth.....
>
> It's a figurative term, of course,
You must be some kind of genius... How did I ever manage life before
without you explaining things to me.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:18 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > > > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > > > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > > > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > > > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > > > other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
> > > > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > > > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > > > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > > > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
> > > Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> > > they've taken as prisoners of war?
>
> > See above. And below. And in 10 other posts in the last 24 hours.
>
> That response isn't specific to the new question.
It doesn't need to be. From http://tinyurl.com/lemflc :
"Du, kindly fuck yourself. Your silly game is over. There is nothing
substantially different about condemning killing or condemning killer.
"
You never attempted to refute the above, therefore my answer to your
unmodified question applies to your modified one. Of course, you are
free to try to prove that the two questions substantially differ. I
will await your attempt.
**********
Read the new
> question carefully:
>
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they've
> taken as prisoners of war?
Either demonstrate the substantial difference between your various
versions and precisely why you feel my answer to the first version
does not apply to the others, or accept the answer to the first
version as applicable to the others. There is no third option.
>
> Do you want to go on record saying *that* question "cannot be
> unconditionally condemned by any person other than a lying idiot like
> you."
Either demonstrate the substantial difference between your various
versions and precisely why you feel my answer to the first version
does not apply to the others, or accept the answer to the first
version as applicable to the others. There is no third option.
>
> > You can continue asking, Du, and I will continue pasting the reply.
>
> That's fine. I want you to dodge the question -- it illustrates the
> point I'm making.
LOL!
Here's a paste from a previous post to ensure that you haven't already
forgotten my answer:
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you.
AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
Children are the weapons of choice
callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
**********
The group will notice that not once in all 13 times has Du ever
addressed the point above. preferring to reside in the twilight zone
and claim that the above does not answer "the question", which is
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Given that the above cites an example condition in which I could not
condemn the killing of a child prisoner, it is clear that I will not
unconditionally condemn the killing of a child prisoner, and therefore
the question has been answered in the negative. Yet Du, obviously a
resident of the twilight zone, insists the question has not been
answered. He does this for one reason: he has nowhere to go in the
discussion, and can't think of anything to do other than to repeat the
question. Don't worry, Du, as I have said, every time you ask, you
will get the answer pasted yet again.
You're my bitch now, Du. How's it feel?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:18 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> > > they've taken as prisoners of war?
>
> > Nope.
>
> Excellent. Thanks for answering.
You're welcome.
See your answer, summarized with
> the rest of the gang of shame, below:
>
> With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
> genocide," here is how the gang of shame stacks up:
>
<snip>
>
> 7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
> every time.
So it looks like Duwayne thinks that answering in the negative is
dodging the question.
Says s/he won’t condemn genocide because it “irritates”
> me. Calls the question “childish” See it’s post of June 17, 2009, and
> also the post from June 26, 2009 at the second hyperlink (below):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> as prisoners of war?”
Again Duwayne is forced to lie. Here is a paste of my answer, for the
15th time:
> Thanks for making your inhuman position so clear. You've been dodging
> this question, though.
Well, I suppose if you think "dodging" means "answering", then yes, I
have been dodging the question.
The group will notice that Du snipped the section of the above
paragraph that answered the question. I will repaste below.
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you.
AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
Children are the weapons of choice
callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
**********
The group will notice that not once in all 13 times has Du ever
addressed the point above. preferring to reside in the twilight zone
and claim that the above does not answer "the question", which is
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Given that the above cites an example condition in which I could not
condemn the killing of a child prisoner, it is clear that I will not
unconditionally condemn the killing of a child prisoner, and therefore
the question has been answered in the negative. Yet Du, obviously a
resident of the twilight zone, insists the question has not been
answered. He does this for one reason: he has nowhere to go in the
discussion, and can't think of anything to do other than to repeat the
question. Don't worry, Du, as I have said, every time you ask, you
will get the answer pasted yet again.
You're my bitch now, Du. How's it feel?
>
> Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
> 2009 post):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
drahcir
That's a small part of my answer, meant to deceive. Here's what I
said:
> Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> as prisoners of war?”
Again Duwayne is forced to lie. Here is a paste of my answer, for the
15th time:
> Thanks for making your inhuman position so clear. You've been dodging
> this question, though.
Well, I suppose if you think "dodging" means "answering", then yes, I
have been dodging the question.
The group will notice that Du snipped the section of the above
paragraph that answered the question. I will repaste below.
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you.
AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
Children are the weapons of choice
callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
**********
The group will notice that not once in all 13 times has Du ever
addressed the point above. preferring to reside in the twilight zone
and claim that the above does not answer "the question", which is
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Given that the above cites an example condition in which I could not
condemn the killing of a child prisoner, it is clear that I will not
unconditionally condemn the killing of a child prisoner, and therefore
the question has been answered in the negative. Yet Du, obviously a
resident of the twilight zone, insists the question has not been
answered. He does this for one reason: he has nowhere to go in the
discussion, and can't think of anything to do other than to repeat the
question. Don't worry, Du, as I have said, every time you ask, you
will get the answer pasted yet again.
You're my bitch now, Du. How's it feel?
>
> Then, when I asked if you "unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill
> children they've taken as prisoners of war," you replied "Nope."
Ditto. A lie. Whatsimatta, Du, can't debate honestly?
>
> I don't recall a direct answer from you regarding genocide, though.
>
That doesn't surprise me. I have had to post the answer to your other
question over 15 times, and you are apparently still unable to
remember it.
> But given your answers to the above questions, it seems your answer to
> the question "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide" is a solid
> "No."
Again, here is my answer:
> Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> as prisoners of war?”
Again Duwayne is forced to lie. Here is a paste of my answer, for the
15th time:
> Thanks for making your inhuman position so clear. You've been dodging
> this question, though.
Well, I suppose if you think "dodging" means "answering", then yes, I
have been dodging the question.
The group will notice that Du snipped the section of the above
paragraph that answered the question. I will repaste below.
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you.
AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
Children are the weapons of choice
callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
**********
The group will notice that not once in all 13 times has Du ever
addressed the point above. preferring to reside in the twilight zone
and claim that the above does not answer "the question", which is
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Given that the above cites an example condition in which I could not
condemn the killing of a child prisoner, it is clear that I will not
unconditionally condemn the killing of a child prisoner, and therefore
the question has been answered in the negative. Yet Du, obviously a
resident of the twilight zone, insists the question has not been
answered. He does this for one reason: he has nowhere to go in the
discussion, and can't think of anything to do other than to repeat the
question. Don't worry, Du, as I have said, every time you ask, you
will get the answer pasted yet again.
You're my bitch now, Du. How's it feel?
> Is that correct?
>
> Let me know, and I'll update your status in the "gang of shame."
Like I care.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:00 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your second
> > > > > stupid question,
>
> > > > Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
>
> > > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
>
> > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > matter how many times you answer him.
>
> Susan, you seem to thing the game is to answer, not to give the right
> answer.
>
> When I asked drahcir "Do you unconditionally condemns soldiers that
> kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?”
>
> He replied "Nope."
Another Duwayne lie. Here is my answer, for roughly the 18th time:
> Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> as prisoners of war?”
Again Duwayne is forced to lie. Here is a paste of my answer, for the
15th time:
> Thanks for making your inhuman position so clear. You've been dodging
> this question, though.
Well, I suppose if you think "dodging" means "answering", then yes, I
have been dodging the question.
The group will notice that Du snipped the section of the above
paragraph that answered the question. I will repaste below.
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
> > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > other than a lying idiot like you.
AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
Children are the weapons of choice
callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
**********
The group will notice that not once in all 13 times has Du ever
addressed the point above. preferring to reside in the twilight zone
and claim that the above does not answer "the question", which is
> Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> taken as prisoners of war?
Given that the above cites an example condition in which I could not
condemn the killing of a child prisoner, it is clear that I will not
unconditionally condemn the killing of a child prisoner, and therefore
the question has been answered in the negative. Yet Du, obviously a
resident of the twilight zone, insists the question has not been
answered. He does this for one reason: he has nowhere to go in the
discussion, and can't think of anything to do other than to repeat the
question. Don't worry, Du, as I have said, every time you ask, you
will get the answer pasted yet again.
You're my bitch now, Du. How's it feel?
>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 16, 1:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 7:18 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > > > > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > > > > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > > > > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > > > > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > > > > other than a lying idiot like you. Children are the weapons of choice
> > > > > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > > > > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > > > > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > > > > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
> > > > Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
> > > > they've taken as prisoners of war?
>
> > > See above. And below. And in 10 other posts in the last 24 hours.
>
> > That response isn't specific to the new question.
>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> > he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> > as prisoners of war?”
>
> Again Duwayne is forced to lie.
You did reply to the question with "Nope." Here's the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
You posted it July 16.
Want to change your answer?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > You did reply to the question "Do you unconditionally condemn killing
> > children that have been taken as prisoners of war."
>
> > You said only a "liar" would do that.
>
> That's a small part of my answer, meant to deceive.
Your answer was meant to deceive?
> Here's what I
> said:
>
> > Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> > he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> > as prisoners of war?”
>
> Again Duwayne is forced to lie.
You've replied more than once. But in one of your replies you really
did say "Nope" when I asked if you unconditionally condemn soldiers
that kill children they've taken as prisoners of war.
Do you want to change your answer?
> Here is a paste of my answer, for the
> 15th time:
>
> > Thanks for making your inhuman position so clear. You've been dodging
> > this question, though.
>
> Well, I suppose if you think "dodging" means "answering", then yes, I
> have been dodging the question.
> The group will notice that Du snipped the section of the above
> paragraph that answered the question. I will repaste below.
>
> > Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> > taken as prisoners of war?
>
> Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
>
> > > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > > other than a lying idiot like you.
Except that was your answer to a slightly different question: Do you
unconditionally condemn the killing of children that have been taken
as prisoners of war.
It's a deplorable answer, but not as deplorable as when you replied
"Nope" when I asked if you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill
children they've taken as prisoners of war.
>
> AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
>
> Children are the weapons of choice
> callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
Your racism is noted. But the example you give is one of soldiers
that kill children that they've taken as prisoners of war.
Yet you said "Nope" when I asked if you unconditionally condemn
soldiers that kill children that they've taken as prisoners of war.
Gary Renzetti
control their tribes.
Gary Renzetti
> On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> LIED:
>
>> 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
>> it every time.
>
> Except that I answered it MONTHS ago, & you have
> has LIED about it EVERY SINGLE TIME, because the
> answer indicted you as you deserved.
>
You *responded* to Duwaynea's questions, but at no time did you *answer*
them. His queries were simple and straightforward and required "yes" or
"no" responses which could have been elaborated on if the respondent so
chose. Even Michael Ejercito was able to figure this out (and took
considerable heat for it; kudos to him for his courage he's an honest man).
Your lying self OTOH, have *never* answered these two quite simple
questions, and all the squirming, jumping up and down screaming
"Jew-hater"�, "projection", "bigot" and "liar" doesn't alter this *fact*.
> What follows is the first time I deigned to
> dignify your projecting. Please note the date:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/e317e7e0235aaa79?dmode=source
>
>
> Sowsan
Gary Renzetti
An interesting question considering the source. How did someone as thick
as yourself ever learn to tie his own shoelaces? How's that "thing" you
seem to be developing with ratscat progressing? Keep lots of KY ready to
hand!
Gary Renzetti
> On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justricha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
>>> every time.
>> PROOF Du is a liar:
>> *********
>> You're a liar, Du. Everyone in this group knows that the answers were
>> provided many posts ago.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
In this post Ms Ratscat poses the theory that a child taken prisoner who
was found to have a previously undetonated bomb strapped to itself
should be killed.
Does anyone have an example of such a scenario actually occurring?
>
> AndI bet that you or Deborah or anyone else could
> also tell him what *I* said, too - not that it would
> keep him from continually lying about it, anyway.
>
> Sowsan
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:18 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You did reply to the question "Do you unconditionally condemn killing
> > > children that have been taken as prisoners of war."
>
> > > You said only a "liar" would do that.
>
> > That's a small part of my answer, meant to deceive.
>
> Your answer was meant to deceive?
Um, no, your inclusion of only a small part of my answer was meant to
deceive.
>
> > Here's what I
> > said:
>
> > > Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> > > he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> > > as prisoners of war?”
>
> > Again Duwayne is forced to lie.
>
> You've replied more than once. But in one of your replies you really
> did say "Nope" when I asked if you unconditionally condemn soldiers
> that kill children they've taken as prisoners of war.
>
> Do you want to change your answer?
Nah, I think this will make it crystal clear for everyone:
What do you think?
>
>
>
> > Here is a paste of my answer, for the
> > 15th time:
>
> > > Thanks for making your inhuman position so clear. You've been dodging
> > > this question, though.
>
> > Well, I suppose if you think "dodging" means "answering", then yes, I
> > have been dodging the question.
> > The group will notice that Du snipped the section of the above
> > paragraph that answered the question. I will repaste below.
>
> > > Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they have
> > > taken as prisoners of war?
>
> > Here's the answer for, I believe, the 13th time:
>
> > > > Poor du the petulant child doesn't know how to get what he wants
> > > > except by repetition. I notice you have now switched from "murdering
> > > > children" to "killing children" after I pointed out your error in
> > > > logic. Now that you have eliminated it, "killing children" taken as
> > > > prisoners of war cannot be unconditionally condemned by any person
> > > > other than a lying idiot like you.
>
> Except that was your answer to a slightly different question:
I asked you to detail how the questions were substantially different
on numerous occasions. You ignored the request because, of course,
there is no substantial difference between the various versions you
have come up with. Therefore, my answer to the first version is
applicable to all the others. This ought to sum it up for you:
Do you
> unconditionally condemn the killing of children that have been taken
> as prisoners of war.
>
> It's a deplorable answer, but not as deplorable as when you replied
> "Nope" when I asked if you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill
> children they've taken as prisoners of war.
>
>
> > AND HERE IS THE PART HE SNIPPED:
>
> > Children are the weapons of choice
> > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
> Your racism is noted. But the example you give is one of soldiers
> that kill children that they've taken as prisoners of war.
>
> Yet you said "Nope" when I asked if you unconditionally condemn
> soldiers that kill children that they've taken as prisoners of war.
>
You're getting yourself all befuddled, Du. You first admit that my
full answer applies to your "soldiers" version:
> But the example you give is one of soldiers
> that kill children that they've taken as prisoners of war.
then you try to foist onto the group the idea that I answered the
soldiers version with only "nope". Of course, since you know my answer
to the soldiers version, you knew that the Nope was all that was
necessary. That was my answer because I and everyone else knew you
already knew the full answer, the one that appears just above
beginning "children are weapons of choice...", the one that was pasted
for your perusal over 15 times before the "nope", thus it was not
necessary to paste the full answer yet another time. It was understood
by all, INCLUDING YOU, that "nope" meant, "nope, children are the
weapons of choice..." Tell me, Du, why do you feel fine about lying in
this manner? First, it is so completely despicable, not to mention
infantile, and second, it is so ridiculous, in that there is simply no
way you will get anyone to believe it.
Here, this puts it so that even you can understand it:
Did you ever think usenet would force you into sinking so incredibly
low? Amazin', isn't it?
Oh, listen, gotta ask you something. From above:
> > Children are the weapons of choice
> > callously used by arabs. Often they have bombs strapped to their
> > bodies. It is not difficult for a normal mind to imagine a scenario
> > where a child is taken prisoner and it goes unnoticed that he has a
> > bomb strapped to his body. When he tries to detonate, he is killed.
>
> Your racism is noted.
So, if you think the above is racist, you must think that arabs don't
use children as weapons, that I made that up because I don't like
arabs, is that correct? I have asked you that before, and your non-
answer leads me to suspect you don't have the courage to answer, but I
thought I would ask again, anyway.
You have also referred to my statement above as "deplorable". Could
you specify precisely what it is about it that you find deplorable?
Here, let me spell out my above answer in somewhat more graphic terms
so that you may find it easier to comprehend. If you were sitting in a
cafe in Israel, for example, and a teenager trying to enter was taken
into custody by soldiers, but as they were escorting him out, he broke
away, and it became evident that he had a bomb strapped to his body
and was trying to detonate himself, would you think that if a soldier
shot him, that that shooting would be "deplorable"?
Oh, in case you missed it:
Also, thought you might find these of interest - they might help you
with your defense of your accusation of racism:
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1375
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/exploit.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003103.php
If you'd care to learn more, Du, just google [recruiting teenagers
suicide missions]
After you're done, let's talk about that racism thing, shall we?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 11:13 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Drahcir went further with the succinct reply of “Nope” when asked if
> > > he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken
> > > as prisoners of war?”
>
> > Again Duwayne is forced to lie.
>
> You did reply to the question with "Nope." Here's the link:
>
>
> You posted it July 16.
>
> Want to change your answer?
http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
>
> <snip to end>
Tim McGaughy
I'm a bit puzzled about that, too.
�R. L. Measures
<liz...@connection.com> wrote:
** he wears velcro fastened shoes?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 16, 5:54 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 11:18 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > You did reply to the question "Do you unconditionally condemn killing
> > > > children that have been taken as prisoners of war."
>
> > > > You said only a "liar" would do that.
>
> > > That's a small part of my answer, meant to deceive.
>
> > Your answer was meant to deceive?
>
> Um, no, your inclusion of only a small part of my answer was meant to
> deceive.
The question was simple: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that
kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?"
You said: "Nope."
You even put a period after it.
Then you went on to explain *why* you answered that way. But the
*why* doesn't change the answer, it just explains why you gave the
deplorable response.
And I gave the link where people could read what you said in full
context. So you are wrong when you say I only included "a small part"
of your "answer."
Here's the link again:
Drahcir: Initially refused to answer the question. Later claimed to
have answered the question. When asked if he “unconditionally
condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken as prisoners of
war?” S/he replied: “Nope”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
> ...
>
> read more »
Duwaynea Anderson
Okay. So you don't want to change your answer. Then stop
complaining.
When asked if he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill
children they've taken as prisoners of war?” drahcir replied: “Nope”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
drahcir
Let me assure you, the only thing shocking is that you have allowed
something as innocuous as usenet to cause you to sink to so low a
level. What you will become should a real-life situation stress you is
anyone's guess. Anyone reading the below link will conclude that if
there was ever anyone who needed God, it's you:
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> it every time.
Stop lying, you bigot.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:00�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your
> > > > >second
> > > > > stupid question,
> >
> > > > Hardly. �Are you still going to ignore it?
> >
> > > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
> >
> > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > matter how many times you answer him.
>
> Susan, you seem to thing the game
Thank you for admitting that it is, indeed, a game to you.
A sick, nasty little game that you are LOSING.
>is to answer, not to give the right
> answer.
And thank you for admitting that you also have the colossal
arrogance to pretend that YOU get to determine what the
"right answer" is. THat you get to somehow order us around
to suit your disgusting prejudices.
The right answer is the one I gave you: the one that did NOT
kowtow to your bigotry, but threw it back in your face, as
you more than deserved.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:12�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> LIED:
> >
> > > 2) �Susan Cohen: �Refuses to answer the question. �Dodges or ignores
> > > it every time.
> >
> > Except that I answered it MONTHS ago,
>
> That's what you say, but you refuse to say what the answer was (just
> as you have done here) or to post a link to the "answer"
Except that when I have done so, you do nothing
but lie about it THEN, TOO!
You have done nothing for MONTHS but lie about
Israel, Jews, Judaism itself - and about everything
ever said to you.
And every time anyone can begin to convince you
the your projecting questions have been answered,
all you do is extend the projecting more - anything
but answer to your own bigotry that you so blatantly
exposed.
Susan
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:49 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 5:54 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 11:18 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > You did reply to the question "Do you unconditionally condemn killing
> > > > > children that have been taken as prisoners of war."
>
> > > > > You said only a "liar" would do that.
>
> > > > That's a small part of my answer, meant to deceive.
>
> > > Your answer was meant to deceive?
>
> > Um, no, your inclusion of only a small part of my answer was meant to
> > deceive.
>
> The question was simple: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that
> kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?"
>
> You said: "Nope."
Yes, I answered "nope" after you had read my full answer on numerous
occasions. Trying to convince anyone that my answer was "nope" isn't
just silly, it's so very low of you. Here's the story:
>
> You even put a period after it.
>
> Then you went on to explain *why* you answered that way. But the
> *why* doesn't change the answer, it just explains why you gave the
> deplorable response.
Here's the story:
>
> And I gave the link where people could read what you said in full
> context. So you are wrong when you say I only included "a small part"
> of your "answer."
>
> Here's the link again:
>
> Drahcir: Initially refused to answer the question. Later claimed to
> have answered the question. When asked if he “unconditionally
> condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken as prisoners of
> war?” S/he replied: “Nope”
Nothing more than "nope" was necessary, since you already knew why my
answer was in the negative. For you now to try to pretend you didn't
read the full answer and try in vain present that single word as my
answer just proves you an amazingly dishonest person, and for what?
For a usenet debate? Pathetic.
Here's the full story:
I think it's excellent that you have gone down this road, Du. How else
could anyone get a glimpse into how low a you can go?
I'm going to here snip some stuff so that everyone can see that Du
ignored the below. He can't cope with the below because if he answers,
his entire position is lost.
So what happened, Du? Did not "overlook" the above? I am sure everyone
is anxious to know, so see ya soon, I hope!
<snip>
Michael Ejercito
>
What is your obsession with unconditional condemnation of an entire
class of acts?
Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
Your answer to this question was shocking:
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children
they've taken as prisoners of war?
drahcir's answer: "Nope"
(it’s in his July 16, 2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
In fact, I'll bet you won't even answer in the affirmative to this
question:
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
children that they have taken as prisoners of war?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> > it every time.
>
> Stop lying, you bigot.
>
> Susan
As if to prove the point, Susan did it again; Snipped and ignored the
questions:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they
have taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
Why won't you?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 9:00 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your
> > > > > >second
> > > > > > stupid question,
>
> > > > > Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
>
> > > > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
>
> > > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > > matter how many times you answer him.
>
> > Susan, you seem to thing the game
>
> Thank you for admitting that it is,
I said no such thing.
> indeed, a game to you.
> A sick, nasty little game that you are LOSING.
See, there you go again. Acting like you think this is a game.
But genocide is very serious business. And the world has too many
people that refuse to unconditionally condemn it.
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they
have taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
Why won't you?
>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > The question was simple: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that
> > kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?"
>
> > You said: "Nope."
>
> Yes, I answered "nope"
And you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so
> after you had read my full answer on numerous
> occasions.
Nope with a period after it. That was your answer. Then you launched
into a sad attempt to justify your appauling answer.
> Trying to convince anyone that my answer was "nope" isn't
> just silly, it's so very low of you. Here's the story:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
Let's tighten up the question a little more:
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
children that they've taken as prisoners of war?
Duwaynea Anderson
We all believe in unconditional things. You believe in unconditional
obedience to what you think your god says. Your unconditional
morality is based on the asserted preaching of men that say they speak
for god.
And since your unconditional rule is "follow god" you are willing to
commit genocide for him:
Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong
NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his post of
June 2, 2009
So my point, so nicely illustrated by you, Measures, Deborah, Susan,
and now drahcir, is that there are a quite a few people that likewise
put the lives of their fellow man lower on the list of priorities than
their commitment to to other philosophies, gods, nations, and rulers.
The point is that the world still has evil, nasty people that will
kill. You are hardly the only person that refuses to unconditionally
condemn genocide. With regard to the question: "Do you
unconditionally condemn genocide," here is how the gang of shame
stacks up:
1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
When asked if he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children
they’ve taken as prisoners of war,” R. L. Measures replied “I don’t
condemn.” See his post of July 16:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?scoring=d&
2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
it every time.
3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
eating Palestinians:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
post of June 2, 2009
6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time.
7) Drahcir: Initially refused to answer the question. Later claimed
to have answered the question. When asked if he “unconditionally
condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken as prisoners of
war?” S/he replied: “Nope”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
drahcir
Here is what's shocking, du:
It's shocking on two levels. It's shocking that anyone would stoop so
low for no good reason, and it's shocking that a brain could be so
damaged as to think that the ploy could possibly succeed.
>
> In fact, I'll bet you won't even answer in the affirmative to this
> question:
>
> Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
> children that they have taken as prisoners of war?
You have seen the answer over 20 times.The fact that you ask the
question yet again only confirms you as a mental incompetent.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:38 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The question was simple: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that
> > > kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?"
>
> > > You said: "Nope."
>
> > Yes, I answered "nope"
>
> And you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so
Nope. You should be ashamed for this:
>
> > after you had read my full answer on numerous
> > occasions.
>
> Nope with a period after it. That was your answer.
Nope. Here was my answer:
Then you launched
> into a sad attempt to justify your appauling answer.
LOL! "Appauling"?? So you think my answer was something that Paul
would have said?
The fact is that my answer preceded by over 24 hours my nope - thus I
had no reason to say more than nope, knowing you had read the entire
answer. The fact that you are so vile as to try to suggest that that
was my answer is amazing, and so easily disproven:
>
> > Trying to convince anyone that my answer was "nope" isn't
> > just silly, it's so very low of you. Here's the story:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
>
> Let's tighten up the question a little more:
>
> Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
> children that they've taken as prisoners of war?
Answer given 20+ times already. The fact that you ask it again only
proves you a mental incompetent.
Glad that you gave up snipping the below, knowing I would just repaste
it. Your inabiliity to address the below proves you have nowhere to go
in this conversation - in fact that you are the lowest coward
imaginable. In the below, I ask you to defend 1) your accusation
against me of racism, and 2) your contention that the answer that you
have read 20+ times is "deplorable". You obviously cannot defend
either of those assertions, but are not man enough to admit you were
wrong.
Gary Renzetti
Smiler
When did you stop beating your wife?
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Smiler
When did you stop beating your wife?
Smiler
What's his obsession with loaded questions.
I keep asking him when he stopped beating his wife, but he refuses to
answer.
Gary Renzetti
There's no ambiguity there, and why would anyone have difficulty
responding with a one-word (Y/N) answer? Anyone answering "no" should
possibly be shot on the spot, but I digress.
Now with question #2, the well-named dick ratscat posed a hypothetical
situation where a group of kids had been apprehended and one of them was
subsequently discovered to be wearing a suicide bomb. Would killing such
a child in this *imaginary* scenario be justified? This question as
phrased could reasonably be answered with a negative response.
�R. L. Measures
<liz...@connection.com> wrote:
� how about it Duwayne?
drahcir
Hey loser, you can't get an adolescent barb right, you're obviously
clueless as to the scenario I proposed, and you're scared to death to
debate me directly. How did a lowly loser like you develop?
BTW, when you "don't speak with me", do you have your arms crossed tap
your foot, and exhale audibly?
DoD
He didn't develop... That is why he is a loser. He won't debate you
cause he
knows you will give him a thumpin....All he has are those adolescent
insults that
he can't even deliver properly.
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
>
> So my point, so nicely illustrated by you, Measures, Deborah, Susan,
> and now drahcir, is that there are a quite a few people that likewise
> put the lives of their fellow man lower on the list of priorities than
> their commitment to to other philosophies, gods, nations, and rulers.
>
> The point is that the world still has evil, nasty people that will
> kill. You are hardly the only person that refuses to unconditionally
> condemn genocide.
Christian theology teaches that the only act that is
unconditionally evil is disobeying the LORD.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:33 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 9:00 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > > > matter how many times you answer him.
>
> > > Susan, you seem to thing the game
>
> > Thank you for admitting that it is,
>
> I said no such thing.
>
> > indeed, a game to you.
> > A sick, nasty little game that you are LOSING.
>
> See, there you go again. Acting like you think this is a game.
>
> But genocide is very serious business.
That is why divine command is the only known moral justification.
Michael
Gary Renzetti
> In article <4acfb$4a611596$d8fe9cf4$13...@PRIMUS.CA>, Gary Renzetti
> <liz...@connection.com> wrote:
>
>
Uhhh *RL, I was talking about Doodoo. Do try and keep up.
drahcir
> DoD wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 8:56 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 15, 4:06 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 15, 5:10 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 15, 3:02 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 15, 3:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/kvcjwn
> >>>>> The guy is a childish bigot,
> >>>>> but I don't think we are going to have
> >>>>> the pleasure in saying goodbye to him anytime soon...
> >>>>> <sigh>
> >>>> It's amazing how much consternation and knashing of teeth been stirred
> >>>> up by these simple questions:
> >>>> 1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
> >>>> 2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
> >>>> taken as prisoners of war?
> >>> I don't see any knashing of teeth.....
> >> It's a figurative term, of course,
>
> > You must be some kind of genius... How did I ever manage life before
> > without you explaining things to me.
>
> An interesting question considering the source. How did someone as thick
> seem to be developing with ratscat progressing? Keep lots of KY ready to
> hand!
...words spoken by the manly man who doesn't even have the courage to
debate me directly and follows DoD around like a little lapdog. Yes,
Gar, I'm quite sure you know all about lubricants.
Gary Renzetti
> On Jul 17, 1:34 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 11:29 am,Michael Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 9:21 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 16, 7:49 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Um, no, your inclusion of only a small part of my answer was meant to
>>>>> deceive.
>>>> The question was simple: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that
>>>> kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?"
>>>> You said: "Nope."
>>>> You even put a period after it.
>>>> Then you went on to explain *why* you answered that way. But the
>>>> *why* doesn't change the answer, it just explains why you gave the
>>>> deplorable response.
>>>> And I gave the link where people could read what you said in full
>>>> context. So you are wrong when you say I only included "a small part"
>>>> of your "answer."
>>>> Here's the link again:
>>>> Drahcir: Initially refused to answer the question. Later claimed to
>>>> condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken as prisoners of
>>>> Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it�s in his July 16,
The problem being Michael, that there is no way to authenticate the
alleged "word of a god", and skeptics myself included think that what we
are actually getting is a man's words to get us to do his (the man's)
bidding.
There would need to be some *very* convincing *proof* of divinity before
anyone could sell me on the idea of murdering an entire tribe of my
fellow human beings.
�R. L. Measures
<liz...@connection.com> wrote:
> > � how about it Duwayne?
> >
> Uhhh *RL, I was talking about Doodoo. Do try and keep up.
� I was talking about shoe fastening methods, not feces.
Smiler
I argue with the word 'unconditionally', as not all possible situations have
yet occurred.
My answering 'yes' to the question would rule out the possibility of a
situation where I wouldn't condemn it.
My answering 'no' to the question makes it look like I don't condemn it AT
ALL.
It is, in other words, a loaded question.
No different from: When did you stop beating your wife?
fla...@verizon.net
On 17-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:33�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 16, 9:00�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > > On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your
> > > > > > >second
> > > > > > > stupid question,
> >
> > > > > > Hardly. �Are you still going to ignore it?
> >
> > > > > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
> >
> > > > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > > > matter how many times you answer him.
> >
> > > Susan, you seem to thing the game
> >
> > Thank you for admitting that it is,
>
> I said no such thing.
Wow, you really are insane.
You call it a game - those are your words, not mine -
& then insist that you didn't. As if no one can read.
& you aren't even smart enough to try to snip the
words you used so you can pretend your lie has
any sort of validity.
You really are nuts.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 17-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:29�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2) �Susan Cohen: �Refuses to answer the question. �Dodges or ignores
> > > it every time.
> >
> > Stop lying, you bigot.
> >
> > Susan
>
> As if to prove the point, Susan did it again; Snipped and ignored the
> questions:
As if to prove the point, DuWaynea lied yet again.
Those projections of his bigotry were repudiated MONTHS agao,
& he knows it - this is why he keeps telling contradictory lies
aboput the answer he got.
Susan
�R. L. Measures
> On 17-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 9:33�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jul 16, 9:00�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > > > On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your
> > > > > > > >second
> > > > > > > > stupid question,
> > >
> > > > > > > Hardly. �Are you still going to ignore it?
> > >
> > > > > > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
> > >
> > > > > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > > > > matter how many times you answer him.
> > >
> > > > Susan, you seem to thing the game
> > >
> > > Thank you for admitting that it is,
> >
> > I said no such thing.
>
> Wow, you really are insane.
� that word seems a bit strong Susan - but I can't come up with anything
more appropriate at the present time.
Duwaynea Anderson
Exactly. So you do believe in "unconditional" things. Others believe
in unconditional allegiance to other gods (besides yours), political
parties, governments, or terrorist organizations.
The truly disappointing thing exposed by this conversation is how few
people have unconditional commitment to their fellow man. That's why
we have the gang of shame; individuals that refuse to affirm their
unconditional opposition to crimes against humanity such as genocide.
With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
genocide," here is how the gang of shame stacks up:
1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
When asked if he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children
they’ve taken as prisoners of war,” R. L. Measures replied “I don’t
condemn.” See his post of July 16:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?scoring=d&
2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
it every time.
3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
eating Palestinians:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
post of June 2, 2009
6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time.
7) Drahcir: Initially refused to answer the question. Later claimed
to have answered the question. When asked if he “unconditionally
condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken as prisoners of
war?” S/he replied: “Nope”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
You'd think we'd learn from history. You'd think that after the
holocaust we'd understand, as people, the evils of genocide. What a
shame there is this gang.
>
> Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 17-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 9:29 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> > > > it every time.
>
> > > Stop lying, you bigot.
>
> > > Susan
>
> > As if to prove the point, Susan did it again; Snipped and ignored the
> > questions:
>
> As if to prove the point, DuWaynea lied yet again.
It's easy to see who is lying, Susan. You really did snip and ignore
the questions:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they
have taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
Why won't you?
> Those projections of his bigotry were repudiated MONTHS agao,
Those questions don't project "bigotry." What a shame you think they
do.
Duwaynea Anderson
Name calling? Yes. Shocking.
> It's shocking on two levels. It's shocking that anyone would stoop so
> low for no good reason, and it's shocking that a brain could be so
> damaged as to think that the ploy could possibly succeed.
When you engage in name calling like that, it gives the impression
that you lack conviction in the rationality of your position.
>
>
>
> > In fact, I'll bet you won't even answer in the affirmative to this
> > question:
>
> > Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
> > children that they have taken as prisoners of war?
>
> You have seen the answer over 20 times.
Yes. And I've posted it about that many times, too. Here, again, is
how drahcir answered"
When asked if he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children
they've taken as prisoners of war?” S/he replied: “Nope”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
I even changed the question to "Do you unconditionally condemn
soldiers that kill un-armed children that they've taken as prisoners
of war," and drahcir still refused to say "yes."
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > after you had read my full answer on numerous
> > > occasions.
>
> > Nope with a period after it. That was your answer.
>
> Nope. Here was my answer:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
You can always tell a fanatic when they start lying about their
answer.
When I asked drahcir if it "unconditionally condemns soldiers that
kill children they've taken as prisoners of war," drahcir said
"Nope." It even put a period after the answer. Here's the link:
(it’s in his July 16, 2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
Then drahcir went on to explain why it answered "Nope." With a period
after. But drahcir had to admit that the objection has never happened
-- at least it couldn't provide a single example of it happening.
So I've changed the question for drahcir to specify un-armed children:
Question: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
children that they've taken as prisoners of war?"
Still waiting for you to stop dodging that question and answer it,
drahcir.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
Which god?
>
> Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 17-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 9:33 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 16-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 16, 9:00 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > > > On 16-Jul-2009, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Well, it appears you have finally given up the ghost on your
> > > > > > > >second
> > > > > > > > stupid question,
>
> > > > > > > Hardly. Are you still going to ignore it?
>
> > > > > > LOL! Here is the answer for the 12th time:
>
> > > > > You know that he's only going to continue to lie no
> > > > > matter how many times you answer him.
>
> > > > Susan, you seem to thing the game
>
> > > Thank you for admitting that it is,
>
> > I said no such thing.
>
> Wow, you really are insane.
Susan, when you engage in name calling it gives the impression that
you lack conviction in the rationality of your argument.
> You call it a game those are your words, not mine -
> & then insist that you didn't.
It's easy enough to read who said what, Susan. And to tell who is
lying. And it's easy enough to see that you have snipped the
questions and refused to answer them:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they
have taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
Why won't you?
�R. L. Measures
<11540dc1-3757-4442...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 10:28=A0am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 1:34=A0pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 17, 11:29=A0am,Michael Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 17, 9:21=A0am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 16, 7:49=A0pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Um, no, your inclusion of only a small part of my answer was mean=
> t to
> > > > > > deceive.
> >
> > > > > The question was simple: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers t=
> hat
> > > > > kill children they've taken as prisoners of war?"
> >
> > > > > You said: "Nope."
> >
> > > > > You even put a period after it.
> >
> > > > > Then you went on to explain *why* you answered that way. =A0But the
> > > > > *why* doesn't change the answer, it just explains why you gave the
> > > > > deplorable response.
> >
> > > > > And I gave the link where people could read what you said in full
> > > > > context. =A0So you are wrong when you say I only included "a small =
> part"
> > > > > of your "answer."
> >
> > > > > Here's the link again:
> >
> > > > > Drahcir: Initially refused to answer the question. =A0Later claimed=
> to
> > > > > have answered the question. =A0When asked if he =93unconditionally
> > > > > condemns soldiers that kill children they've taken as prisoners of
> > > > > war?=94 S/he replied: =93Nope=94
> >
> > > > > Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it=92s in his July 1=
> 6,
> > > > > 2009 post):
> >
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread=
> /...
> >
> > > > =A0 =A0What is your obsession with unconditional condemnation of an e=
> ntire
> > > > class of acts?
> >
> > > > =A0Michael
> >
> > > We all believe in unconditional things. =A0You believe in unconditional
> > > obedience to what you think your god says. =A0Your unconditional
> > > morality is based on the asserted preaching of men that say they speak
> > > for god.
> >
> > > And since your unconditional rule is "follow god" you are willing to
> > > commit genocide for him:
> >
> > > Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong
> > > NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." =A0See his post of
> > > June 2, 2009
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
> >
> > > So my point, so nicely illustrated by you, Measures, Deborah, Susan,
> > > and now drahcir, is that there are a quite a few people that likewise
> > > put the lives of their fellow man lower on the list of priorities than
> > > their commitment to to other philosophies, gods, nations, and rulers.
> >
> > > The point is that the world still has evil, nasty people that will
> > > kill. =A0You are hardly the only person that refuses to unconditionally
> > > condemn genocide.
> >
> > =A0 =A0Duwaynea,
> >
> > =A0 =A0Christian theology teaches that the only act that is
> > unconditionally evil is disobeying the LORD.
>
> Exactly. So you do believe in "unconditional" things. Others believe
> in unconditional allegiance to other gods (besides yours), political
> parties, governments, or terrorist organizations.
>
> The truly disappointing thing exposed by this conversation is how few
> people have unconditional commitment to their fellow man. That's why
> we have the gang of shame; individuals that refuse to affirm their
> unconditional opposition to crimes against humanity such as genocide.
>
> With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
> genocide," here is how the gang of shame stacks up:
>
> 1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/8c4468=
> 218270eff0/d7a506faed5739ba#d7a506faed5739ba
>
> When asked if he =93unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children
> they=92ve taken as prisoners of war,=94 R. L. Measures replied =93I don=92t
> condemn.=94 See his post of July 16:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17=
> bfee189e86?scoring=3Dd&
>
> 2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
> it every time.
>
> 3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
> execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17=
> bfee189e86?
>
> 4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
> ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
> eating Palestinians:
>
** and Duhwayne took it seriously. Thanks for the laughs DA.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > 4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
> > ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
> > eating Palestinians:
>
> ** and Duhwayne took it seriously.
Everyone has met a racist/bigot that makes off-color remarks, or
threats of violence (as Deborah did) and then tries to slough it off
as a "joke."
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
> Thanks for the laughs DA.
That gang of shame is no joke, Measures. When you refuse to condemn
Hamas and other terrorist groups, when you refuse to unconditionally
condemn genocide, and when you refuse to unconditionally condemn
soldiers that kill un-armed children that have been taken as prisoners
of war, it's no joke.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
�R. L. Measures
<b3873a6f-abc7-4fea...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:03=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > 4) =A0Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. =A0Dodges or
> > > ignores it every time. =A0Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
> > > eating Palestinians:
> >
> > ** =A0and Duhwayne took it seriously. =A0
>
> Everyone has met a racist/bigot that makes off-color remarks, or
> threats of violence (as Deborah did) and then tries to slough it off
> as a "joke."
>
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/=
> msg00031.pdf
>
> > =A0Thanks for the laughs DA.
>
> That gang of shame is no joke, Measures.
** DUHWAYNE BELIEVESWhen you refuse to condemn
** Hello! I AM NOT A DIETY DUHWAYNE.
> Hamas and other terrorist groups, when you refuse to unconditionally
> condemn genocide, and when you refuse to unconditionally condemn
> soldiers that kill un-armed children that have been taken as prisoners
> of war, it's no joke.
** YOU CAN ARGUE WITH GOD ABOUT NUMBERS 31, DUHWAYNE, BUT FOR DAMN SURE
NOT WITH ME.
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
Kings.
Michael
drahcir
What are you blathering about? You want to classify your vile lying as
"name calling", one of your silly catch-phrases? You think that that
relieves you of responsibility for sinking as low as anyone can sink
on usenet? Think again, Du.
>
>> It's shocking on two levels. It's shocking that anyone would stoop so
>> low for no good reason, and it's shocking that a brain could be so
>> damaged as to think that the ploy could possibly succeed.
>
>When you engage in name calling like that, it gives the impression
>that you lack conviction in the rationality of your position.
Du, if you think that you can classify this:
as "name calling", you really are in need of professional help. Let's
review:
1) You asked a question
2) I answered that question
3) You were so flabbergasted, you didn't know what to do after
receiving my answer. You then tried to make minor changes to the
question. I asked you to cite precisely what was different in those
variants from the original question, a request you ignored, which of
course was your only choice, since there was no substantial difference
between all of the variants.
4) After your repeating the question constantly and my providing the
answer by cut and paste, you never once made any comment as to the
answer, preferring to simply re-ask the question, proving yourself odd
to say the least.
5) Somewhere between the 15th and 25th time you asked, I got tired of
pasting my answer, which was in the negative. I answered "Nope", since
I and everyone else here knew that you knew my complete answer, thus
what "nope" meant. Never in my wildest imagination did I think any
normal; person would stoop so low as to think he could foist onto the
group the idea that "nope" was my complete answer. Never did I suspect
that you are such a mental defective that you would think that so vile
and obvious a lie would have a chance of succeeding. But you surprised
me. You sank to a level unimaginable to me or probably anyone else.
You are a vile creature, Du. You should reconsider your fake atheism -
you are more in need of God than anyone I know.
If you'd like to dispute any of the above, please do so. I think it's
obvious that you won't try.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In fact, I'll bet you won't even answer in the affirmative to this
>> > question:
>>
>> > Question: �Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
>> > children that they have taken as prisoners of war?
>>
>> You have seen the answer over 20 times.
>
>Yes. And I've posted it about that many times, too. Here, again, is
>how drahcir answered"
Vile liar
>
>When asked if he �unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children
>they've taken as prisoners of war?� S/he replied: �Nope�
>
>Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it�s in his July 16,
>2009 post):
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
>
>
>I even changed the question to "Do you unconditionally condemn
>soldiers that kill un-armed children that they've taken as prisoners
>of war," and drahcir still refused to say "yes."
Your change was irrelevant. I have proven that by asking you to cite
the difference, a request you ignored. You are a grotesque liar, and,
while you think that by way of this ridiculous episode you have me
over a barrel, in fact, by repeating this idiocy, you just ensure
there is no one who reads these groups who doesn't understand how vile
a creature you are. So in fact, while at first you caught me off
guard, and I saw my "nope" as a blunder for the purposes of debate,
now I realize the it alone has demonstrated in the most graphic terms
the seemingly impossibly grotesque thing you are. Thanks for that.
drahcir
<Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 17, 1:55�pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> > > after you had read my full answer on numerous
>> > > occasions.
>>
>> > Nope with a period after it. �That was your answer. �
>>
>> Nope. Here was my answer:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
>
>You can always tell a fanatic when they start lying about their
>answer.
LOL! Here's a cut and paste. I don't have time for a mental defective
like you:
Here's the story, Du:
>When I asked drahcir if it "unconditionally condemns soldiers that
>kill children they've taken as prisoners of war," drahcir said
>"Nope." It even put a period after the answer. Here's the link:
>
>(it�s in his July 16, 2009 post):
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
>
>
>Then drahcir went on to explain why it answered "Nope." With a period
>after. But drahcir had to admit that the objection has never happened
>-- at least it couldn't provide a single example of it happening.
>
>So I've changed the question for drahcir to specify un-armed children:
>
>Question: "Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
>children that they've taken as prisoners of war?"
>
>Still waiting for you to stop dodging that question and answer it,
>drahcir.
Interested parties can read all about it here:
Keep it up, Du. Every post you make cements your vile image here.
>
>
><snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
Which god?
>
> Michael
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>> The truly disappointing thing exposed by this conversation is how few
>> people have unconditional commitment to their fellow man. That's why
>> we have the gang of shame; individuals that refuse to affirm their
>> unconditional opposition to crimes against humanity such as genocide.
> God is greater than man.
>
its self. Can not even be bothered to come to earth and make a
spectacle of its self to destroy all doubt.
Yet idiots like you will continue to spout all about the mythical deity
that rattles around in your empty little heads.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
> <b3873a6f-abc7-4fea-a829-b257e4bd0...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 7:03=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > > > 4) =A0Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. =A0Dodges or
> > > > ignores it every time. =A0Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
> > > > eating Palestinians:
>
> > > ** =A0and Duhwayne took it seriously. =A0
>
> > Everyone has met a racist/bigot that makes off-color remarks, or
> > threats of violence (as Deborah did) and then tries to slough it off
> > as a "joke."
>
> > msg00031.pdf
>
> > > =A0Thanks for the laughs DA.
>
> > That gang of shame is no joke, Measures.
>
> ** DUHWAYNE BELIEVESWhen you refuse to condemn
>
> ** Hello! I AM NOT A DIETY DUHWAYNE.
>
> > Hamas and other terrorist groups, when you refuse to unconditionally
> > condemn genocide, and when you refuse to unconditionally condemn
> > soldiers that kill un-armed children that have been taken as prisoners
> > of war, it's no joke.
>
> ** YOU CAN ARGUE WITH GOD ABOUT NUMBERS 31, DUHWAYNE, BUT FOR DAMN SURE
> NOT WITH ME.
Not arguing at all, Measures. Just helping you expose yourself.
The questions are not specific to Numbers 31:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they
have taken as prisoners of war?
Asking you why you refuse to condemn Hamas and other terrorist
organizations has nothing to do with Numbers 31, too.
Duwaynea Anderson
That god is a figment of your imagination. He's no different than
Quetzalcoatl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl
These gods are man-made, and when you do what the "gods" tell you, you
are just doing what their inventors want you to do.
So, when you express willingness to kill others for your god, you are
simply doing what Hitler's followers did, or what the 9/11 terrorists
did; "follow the leader."
> the Lord of Lords and King of
> Kings.
He's lord of nothing and king of nothing but the superstitious.
>
> Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> On Jul 19, 8:29 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17-Jul-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 9:33 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > > Thank you for admitting that it is,
>
> > > I said no such thing.
>
> > Wow, you really are insane.
>
> Susan, when you engage in name calling it gives the impression that
> you lack conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> > You call it a game those are your words, not mine -
> > & then insist that you didn't.
>
> It's easy enough to read who said what, Susan. And to tell who is
> lying. And it's easy enough to see that you have snipped the
> questions and refused to answer them:
>
> 1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
> 2) Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they
> have taken as prisoners of war?
disobedience to the LORD.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >> The truly disappointing thing exposed by this conversation is how few
> >> people have unconditional commitment to their fellow man. That's why
> >> we have the gang of shame; individuals that refuse to affirm their
> >> unconditional opposition to crimes against humanity such as genocide.
> > God is greater than man.
>
> And yet, strangely enough, can not speak for its self. Can not act for
> its self. Can not even be bothered to come to earth and make a
> spectacle of its self to destroy all doubt.
>
> Yet idiots like you will continue to spout all about the mythical deity
> that rattles around in your empty little heads.
wearing miters or turbans.
Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Duwaynea Anderson
>
> >On Jul 17, 1:55 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >> > > after you had read my full answer on numerous
> >> > > occasions.
>
> >> > Nope with a period after it. That was your answer.
>
> >> Nope. Here was my answer:
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
>
> >You can always tell a fanatic when they start lying about their
> >answer.
>
> LOL! Here's a cut and paste.
You forgot to "cut and paste" the answers I gave you. I've repeated
them below:
> I don't have time for a mental defective
> like you:
When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
conviction in the rationality of your argument.
> Here's the story, Du:
When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> 1) You asked a question
I asked several, actually.
When asked if he “unconditionally condemns soldiers that kill children
they've taken as prisoners of war?” S/he replied: “Nope”
Read this shockingly deplorable response here (it’s in his July 16,
2009 post):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/44eaabe2aa0e4006?scoring=d&
> 2) I answered that question
Yeah. You replied:
Nope.
> 3) You were so flabbergasted, you didn't know what to do after
> receiving my answer.
Actually, I added your "Nope" to the "gang of shame" roster, along
with the link where folks could easily verify that you really don't
unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill children they've taken as
prisoners of war.
> You then tried to make minor changes to the
> question. I asked you to cite precisely what was different in those
> variants from the original question, a request you ignored, which of
> course was your only choice, since there was no substantial difference
> between all of the variants.
The "minor" change was to make the question read this way:
Question: Do you unconditionally condemn soldiers that kill un-armed
children that they've taken as prisoners of war?
By all accounts you see no difference between that question and the
first. And, presumably, your answer is still "Nope."
> 4) After your repeating the question constantly and my providing the
> answer by cut and paste, you never once made any comment as to the
> answer, preferring to simply re-ask the question, proving yourself odd
> to say the least.
Don't be absurd. I've repeated your deplorable answer all over the
place.
What better way to illustrate racism and bigotry that to quote people
like you saying "Nope" when asked if they unconditionally condemn
soldiers killing un-armed children that they've taken as prisoners of
war?
> 5) Somewhere between the 15th and 25th time you asked, I got tired of
> pasting my answer, which was in the negative. I answered "Nope", since
> I and everyone else here knew that you knew my complete answer, thus
> what "nope" meant. Never in my wildest imagination did I think any
> normal; person would stoop so low as to think he could foist onto the
> group the idea that "nope" was my complete answer. Never did I suspect
> that you are such a mental defective that you would think that so vile
> and obvious a lie would have a chance of succeeding. But you surprised
> me. You sank to a level unimaginable to me or probably anyone else.
> You are a vile creature, Du. You should reconsider your fake atheism -
> you are more in need of God than anyone I know.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mopnzp
>
> If you'd like to dispute any of the above, please do so. I think it's
> obvious that you won't try.
>
>
>
>
>
> >When I asked drahcir if it "unconditionally condemns soldiers that
> >kill children they've taken as prisoners of war," drahcir said
> >"Nope." It even put a period after the answer. Here's the link:
>
> >(it’s in his July 16, 2009 post):
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...