Knighthood in Cyberspace?
aecs
Being of Spanish descent ( I live in Puerto Rico, which was under Spanish
rule until 1898 when the US invaded) And having heraldic coat-of-arms from
both sides of the family, ( From time inmemorial) I wonder what constitutes
being a Cyber Knight. If you champion a cause, noblest of deeds, that in
itself, does not automatically make you one.
Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed. Maybe
aspiring-knights,
yes you are. And maybe fully worthy of being given the title, yes also. But
real ones?
Please.......
Sincerely,
Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
ae...@coqui.net
Gear
aecs <ae...@coqui.net> wrote in message
news:ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> Hello,
>
> Being of Spanish descent ( I live in Puerto Rico, which was under Spanish
> rule until 1898 when the US invaded)
Yeah, you're right. Pueto Rico should have stuck with Spain.
>And having heraldic coat-of-arms from
> both sides of the family, ( From time inmemorial)
That's a long time. How cool.
>I wonder what constitutes
> being a Cyber Knight.
What does the US talking something from people who can't run it themselves
and you trying desperately to convince people you matter have to do with
knighthood?
>If you champion a cause, noblest of deeds, that in
> itself, does not automatically make you one.
> Knighthood is CONFERRED.
Nice word. You're very proud of it aren't you?
>Not inherited, or self appointed. Maybe
> aspiring-knights,
Not one single Knight here appointed himself.
> yes you are. And maybe fully worthy of being given the title, yes also.
But
> real ones?
> Please.......
>
Grace us with your knowledge then ricky.
> Sincerely,
> Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> ae...@coqui.net
>
>
>
Shouldn't that be El Toro?
Gear
Laurie Brandt
I have never claimed to be of such standing, thought some of my ancestry
were awarded achievements of arms, it has not been my good fortune to
inherit them, in most cases to many second sons and the like. I am
interested in the subject of knights, knighthood and all the trappings
of chivalry in general. By the way do you know what incidental music
might have been used during a knight ceremony, other then singing Mass?
special songs played during vigil, the bath or moving from one part of
the ceremony to an other
Laurie Wood Brandt
In the Society for Creative Anachronism HL Pegasus Devona, AoA, Esquire, Pursuvant.
aecs wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Being of Spanish descent ( I live in Puerto Rico, which was under Spanish
> rule until 1898 when the US invaded) And having heraldic coat-of-arms from
> both sides of the family, ( From time inmemorial) I wonder what constitutes
> being a Cyber Knight. If you champion a cause, noblest of deeds, that in
> itself, does not automatically make you one.
> Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed. Maybe
> aspiring-knights,
> yes you are. And maybe fully worthy of being given the title, yes also. But
> real ones?
> Please.......
>
Mark E Sievert
>
> Being of Spanish descent ( I live in Puerto Rico, which was under Spanish
> rule until 1898 when the US invaded) And having heraldic coat-of-arms from
> both sides of the family, ( From time inmemorial) I wonder what
constitutes
> being a Cyber Knight. If you champion a cause, noblest of deeds, that in
> itself, does not automatically make you one.
> Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed. Maybe
> aspiring-knights,
> yes you are. And maybe fully worthy of being given the title, yes also.
But
> real ones?
> Please.......
>
> Sincerely,
> Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> ae...@coqui.net
>
I agree.
As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll receive in
this NG will be from trolls. A troll is best defined as an insignificant
ghost who howls at the world for attention. Certainly not the stuff of
gentlemen, or men for that matter.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Sievert
Gear
Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:T3Gn4.1676$o01....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> aecs <ae...@coqui.net> wrote in message
> news:ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > Being of Spanish descent ( I live in Puerto Rico, which was under
Spanish
> > rule until 1898 when the US invaded) And having heraldic coat-of-arms
from
> > both sides of the family, ( From time inmemorial) I wonder what
> constitutes
> > being a Cyber Knight. If you champion a cause, noblest of deeds, that
in
> > itself, does not automatically make you one.
> > Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed. Maybe
> > aspiring-knights,
> > yes you are. And maybe fully worthy of being given the title, yes also.
> But
> > real ones?
> > Please.......
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> > ae...@coqui.net
> >
>
> I agree.
> As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll receive in
> this NG will be from trolls.
What about those responses he'll receive from ignorant, poorly edjucated,
blow-hard, backwoods christians who duck out of threads and run for cover
just as it's starting to get crunchy?
What about those responses Mary?
>A troll is best defined as an insignificant
> ghost who howls at the world for attention.
You don't have the foggiest clue what a troll is so how about you shut the
fuck up?
> Certainly not the stuff of
> gentlemen, or men for that matter.
>
What the hell would you know about it? Would you consider your posts to me
gentlemenly?
Stupid hick. You can't even speak convincingly for yourself and what you
propose to believe. I sure in the hell don't think you're qualified to speak
on anything else.
Try an edjucation before you open your mouth.
Gear
Danger
Have you even read an OOTKOF website?
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr.
"aecs" <ae...@coqui.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed
Does one have to be a Knight in order to confer Knighthood?
> Sincerely,
> Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> ae...@coqui.net
>
>
--
Copyright 2000
~ Father O'Blivion
SubGenius Knight Of Fire
yetikin.cjb.net ootikof.org
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr.
> As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll receive
in
insignificant
> ghost who howls at the world for attention. Certainly not the stuff
of
> gentlemen, or men for that matter.
>
> Mark E. Sievert
>
>
Actually, that's the definition of childish behavior. Your above
missive is an example of a troll. You got me to respond so it wasn't a
bad one either.
Angele Dupont
By the way do you know what incidental music might have been used during a knight ceremony, other then singing Mass?
special songs played during vigil, the bath or moving from one part of
the ceremony to an other
I refeer you to the Dufay "messe de l'homme armé". It was one of the music used by the french in knighting ceremony. It is named a "messe" (french for mass) because the french tradition called a mass every music played in relation to a ceremony held in a church.
Jean Pascal Leblanc,
Medievist from the Universite du Quebec à Chicoutimi,
former member of SCA
Laurie Brandt
Lauurie Brandt
Father, H., J., O'Blivion, "Dkr." wrote:
>
> In article <ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "aecs" <ae...@coqui.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed
>
> Does one have to be a Knight in order to confer Knighthood?
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> > ae...@coqui.net
> >
> >
>
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr.
Then that means that all Knights are not really Knights, for who
Knighted the first Knight? What are you going to tell me? That "God"
Knighted the first Knight? If being initiated is a requirment of all
members, then the first guy is lying. TFTTB Laurie, you helped to prove
my point.
Mark E Sievert
Sincerely,
Mark E. Sievert
Gear <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OoMn4.1604$Tc.8...@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
>
>
> Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:T3Gn4.1676$o01....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > aecs <ae...@coqui.net> wrote in message
> > news:ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Being of Spanish descent ( I live in Puerto Rico, which was under
> Spanish
> > > rule until 1898 when the US invaded) And having heraldic coat-of-arms
> from
> > > both sides of the family, ( From time inmemorial) I wonder what
> > constitutes
> > > being a Cyber Knight. If you champion a cause, noblest of deeds, that
> in
> > > itself, does not automatically make you one.
> > > Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed. Maybe
> > > aspiring-knights,
> > > yes you are. And maybe fully worthy of being given the title, yes
also.
> > But
> > > real ones?
> > > Please.......
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> > > ae...@coqui.net
> > >
> >
> > I agree.
> > As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll receive in
> > this NG will be from trolls.
>
> What about those responses he'll receive from ignorant, poorly edjucated,
> blow-hard, backwoods christians who duck out of threads and run for cover
> just as it's starting to get crunchy?
>
> What about those responses Mary?
>
> >A troll is best defined as an insignificant
> > ghost who howls at the world for attention.
>
> You don't have the foggiest clue what a troll is so how about you shut the
> fuck up?
>
> > Certainly not the stuff of
> > gentlemen, or men for that matter.
> >
>
Mark E Sievert
Mark E. Sievert
<Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87nv97$kj6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll receive
> in
> > this NG will be from trolls. A troll is best defined as an
> insignificant
> > ghost who howls at the world for attention. Certainly not the stuff
> of
> > gentlemen, or men for that matter.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Mark E. Sievert
> >
> >
>
> Actually, that's the definition of childish behavior. Your above
> missive is an example of a troll. You got me to respond so it wasn't a
> bad one either.
>
Mark E Sievert
> In article <38A0354B...@sprintmail.com>,
> Laurie Brandt <brandt...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, only a knight make a knight.
> > Lauurie Brandt
>
authority of a "fons honorum" or fountain of honor, meaning a Head of State
with powers to do so, or a Monarch, ruling or not. In the case of
hereditary knights, an unbroken line must be traced back to the granting
authority.
In the SCA a knight may make a knight with the approval of an SCA King.
In Fraternal Orders, knighthood is usually obtained in the lodge's highest
degree which may include a dubbing ceremony.
>
>
> Then that means that all Knights are not really Knights, for who
> Knighted the first Knight? What are you going to tell me? That "God"
> Knighted the first Knight? If being initiated is a requirment of all
> members, then the first guy is lying. TFTTB Laurie, you helped to prove
> my point.
What is neccessary to answer these questions is a good working definition of
"knight". Cnihthad is the Old English word for knighthood, which was the
period between youth and maturity. The Cnihthas were originally landholders
for Saxon Earls, Bishops and Thegns, who served militarily for 40 days a
year.
The word Chivalry is from the Old French "Chevalerie" which meant a mounted
man-at-arms or a body of honorable men.
By the 12th Century, Knight and Chivalry were synonymous, describing both
personal attributes and a code of conduct.
As the centuries past, the authority to create knights became the perogative
of the kings. Knighthood had passed as a profession to a rank of dignity.
Mark E. Sievert
>
>
>
> >
> > Father, H., J., O'Blivion, "Dkr." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > > "aecs" <ae...@coqui.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
<snip>
Gear
> Enrique, this is an excellent example of what I wrote to you about.
Enrique, this is an excellent example of what I wrote to you about.
Mary, you are such a pussy.
Gear
> > > As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll receive
in
> > > this NG will be from trolls.
> >
> > What about those responses he'll receive from ignorant, poorly
edjucated,
> > blow-hard, backwoods christians who duck out of threads and run for
cover
> > just as it's starting to get crunchy?
> >
> > What about those responses Mary?
> >
> > >A troll is best defined as an insignificant
> > > ghost who howls at the world for attention.
> >
> > You don't have the foggiest clue what a troll is so how about you shut
the
> > fuck up?
> >
> > > Certainly not the stuff of
> > > gentlemen, or men for that matter.
> > >
> >
Gear
And for his next trick - Mary will explain why he's a christian.
You know Mary, if you spent as much time studying christianity as you do on
this silly knight/chivalry business maybe I wouldn't have been able to shred
you so easily.
Pffft. Yeah right. What the fuck was I thinking............
You knew the old French root?? Christ on a bike that's pathetic. Get off
your ass. Not only are you a poorly educated christian, you're a very lazy
christian.
Do you think your jew would approve? I seriously doubt it.
Mary, Mary quite contrary.
It must suck being so unable.
Gear
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Actually, it was a warning considering Gear's "missive".
Well, it was, at least, designed to appear that way. But we both know
that it was meant to engender a negative reaction from some while
simultaneously generating support from others. You will of course claim
otherwise but we both know the truth. If you truely meant well you
would simply let said "insignificant ghost who howls at the world for
attention" become self apparent. But what you really want is to
aggravate someone whos posting you don't like by insulting them.
>
> Mark E. Sievert
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
> news:87nv97$kj6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll
receive
> > in
> > > this NG will be from trolls. A troll is best defined as an
> > insignificant
> > > ghost who howls at the world for attention. Certainly not the
stuff
> > of
> > > gentlemen, or men for that matter.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Mark E. Sievert
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Actually, that's the definition of childish behavior. Your above
> > missive is an example of a troll. You got me to respond so it
wasn't a
> > bad one either.
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message
Nice, i get support from all sides on this issue. Thanx.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Father, H., J., O'Blivion, "Dkr." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > > > "aecs" <ae...@coqui.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> <snip>
>
>
--
Copyright 2000
~ Father O'Blivion
SubGenius Knight Of Fire
yetikin.cjb.net ootikof.org www.subgenius.com
Mark E Sievert
<Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message news:87sicd$t98$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Not quite, Laurie made a statement that was factually incomplete. Your
comments on such an incomplete statement draws an incorrect conclusion that
someone needs to be the first knight. A King can create a knight without
being one because it is within his power to create a priviledged vassal
warrior to serve him. A King does not have to be a baron himself to create
a baron.
As I have written in the previous post, knighthood evolved from a
priviledged warrior class in England and France. In the latter, evidence
shows that the first knights who called themselves such operated in cliques
and local bands or clubs. It was in these various groups that the
initiation or dubbing came into practice. As time passed, these rituals
became codified and practiced universally.
Mark E. Sievert
Mark E Sievert
> In article <4d_n4.2003$rv2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>
>
>
> Well, it was, at least, designed to appear that way. But we both know
> that it was meant to engender a negative reaction from some while
> simultaneously generating support from others. You will of course claim
> otherwise but we both know the truth. If you truely meant well you
> would simply let said "insignificant ghost who howls at the world for
> attention" become self apparent. But what you really want is to
> aggravate someone whos posting you don't like by insulting them.
Spoken like a true partisan.
We do have differences, but on some occasions like this, we can come
together and discuss like gentlemen. Though I don't need it, I rarely find
you mounting a defence on my behalf when Gear decides to insult me.
Good day,
Mark E. Sievert
>
>
> >
> > Mark E. Sievert
> >
> > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> message
> > news:87nv97$kj6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > As a courtesy, I will tell you that the most responses you'll
> receive
> > > in
> > > > this NG will be from trolls. A troll is best defined as an
> > > insignificant
> > > > ghost who howls at the world for attention. Certainly not the
> stuff
> > > of
> > > > gentlemen, or men for that matter.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Mark E. Sievert
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, that's the definition of childish behavior. Your above
> > > missive is an example of a troll. You got me to respond so it
> wasn't a
> > > bad one either.
>
>
Gear
Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ZTlo4.1750$%M5.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> message news:87si6p$t6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <4d_n4.2003$rv2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > Actually, it was a warning considering Gear's "missive".
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, it was, at least, designed to appear that way. But we both know
> > that it was meant to engender a negative reaction from some while
> > simultaneously generating support from others. You will of course claim
> > otherwise but we both know the truth. If you truely meant well you
> > would simply let said "insignificant ghost who howls at the world for
> > attention" become self apparent. But what you really want is to
> > aggravate someone whos posting you don't like by insulting them.
>
> Spoken like a true partisan.
>
> We do have differences, but on some occasions like this, we can come
> together and discuss like gentlemen. Though I don't need it, I rarely
find
> you mounting a defence on my behalf when Gear decides to insult me.
>
WHAT?? BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Dumbshit.
Gear
foreverknight
"Knight makes Knight" to "Monarch makes Knight" occur? Could an Elizabethan
Knight be made by anyone but the queen?.........How about Henry VIII and so
on..?
Thank you in advance.
Mark E Sievert
foreverknight <foreve...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:p9uo4.765$Qn4....@cmnws01.we.mediaone.net...
The transition was gradual, due in part to the sometimes odious obligations
of being a knight, at least in England, which included the dispensation of
justice in common courts. One can imagine hearing case after case of
purlioned chickens and spilled wine casks.
Many sons of landed knights never bothered to be knighted, thus sparing
themselves the high expense of the occasion and freeing up their time from
the courts. These sons of knights styled themselves "Esquires" and retained
for the most part, the honor of their families.
In Christopher Hibbert's book Agincourt, there is listed in the appendixes
an indenture for a Thomas Turnstall, Esquire by King Henry V for the war in
France. Thomas was to lead a company of 6 mounted men-at-arms and 18
mounted archers. This sounds like a knight's or banneret's command, but
you can see the erosion of the statis of knighthood by the year 1415. In
later times in England all esquires and gentlemen who possessed estates
beyond a certain size were required by law to be knighted.
As traditions are slow to evolve, I cannot pinpoint a time where in history
the transition occured. The last three documented Knight Bannerets in
England were created in 1547. Perhaps there is a statute in which the
Sovereign retains exclusive right to create knights.
Hope this helps,
Mark E. Sievert
Laurie Brandt
The early history of knighthood can be traced back to the arming rituals
done for the young people of a Gaulish tribe as described in the Roman
General Agricala's<s> work on the Germans. This developed in to a young
mans father giving him a sword. This latter developed into the blending
of this and the ritual for creating a Monk in the late 10th century. It
is from this we start to get the more involved rituals. The Monarchy
took over this privilege as a means of gaining some control over the
military. For more details see R. Barber, M. Keen 's books for more more details.
Laurie Brandt
Laurie Brandt wrote:
>
> Yes, only a knight make a knight.
> Lauurie Brandt
>
> Father, H., J., O'Blivion, "Dkr." wrote:
> >
> > In article <ogCn4.30187$ox5.7...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > "aecs" <ae...@coqui.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Knighthood is CONFERRED. Not inherited, or self appointed
> >
> > Does one have to be a Knight in order to confer Knighthood?
> >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Enrique Torres y Del Toro.
> > > ae...@coqui.net
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Copyright 2000
> > ~ Father O'Blivion
> > SubGenius Knight Of Fire
> > yetikin.cjb.net ootikof.org
> >
Mark E Sievert
Laurie Brandt <brandt...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:38A2EA7D...@sprintmail.com...
> An expansion on my earlier statement.
> The early history of knighthood can be traced back to the arming rituals
> done for the young people of a Gaulish tribe as described in the Roman
> General Agricala's<s> work on the Germans. This developed in to a young
> mans father giving him a sword. This latter developed into the blending
> of this and the ritual for creating a Monk in the late 10th century. It
> is from this we start to get the more involved rituals. The Monarchy
> took over this privilege as a means of gaining some control over the
> military. For more details see R. Barber, M. Keen 's books for more more
details.
> Laurie Brandt
Yes, you got me to pull the Complete Works of Tacitus off my dusty shelf for
that one. Spear and shield were also common symbols of early knightings
(passage into manhood) among the German tribes.
Mark E. Sievert
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> > Nice, i get support from all sides on this issue. Thanx.
>
> Not quite, Laurie made a statement that was factually incomplete.
Your
> comments on such an incomplete statement draws an incorrect
conclusion that
> someone needs to be the first knight
You're just not even reading the threads are you? My statement was
quite correct when extrapolating from the info given. Are you stupid?
Copyright 2000
~ Father O'Blivion
SubGenius Knight Of Fire
yetikin.cjb.net ootikof.org www.subgenius.com
foreverknight
Mark E Sievert wrote in message ...
Mark E Sievert
> In article <%Tlo4.1751$%M5.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> > message news:87sicd$t98$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > > Nice, i get support from all sides on this issue. Thanx.
> >
> > Not quite, Laurie made a statement that was factually incomplete.
> Your
> > comments on such an incomplete statement draws an incorrect
> conclusion that
> > someone needs to be the first knight
>
> You're just not even reading the threads are you? My statement was
> quite correct when extrapolating from the info given. Are you stupid?
An imperfect arguement based on an imperfect statement of fact is to me IMO
an exercise in useless rhetoric. I thought as this is a public forum
(right?), that I was free to shower the thread with a few facts concerning
the topic of the NG.
Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you then I suggest
you refrain from reading me. I've received enough encouragement for me to
continue participation on relevent issues here.
Mark E. Sievert
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
<snip>
> > You're just not even reading the threads are you? My statement was
> > quite correct when extrapolating from the info given. Are you
stupid?
>
> An imperfect arguement based on an imperfect statement of fact is to
me IMO
> an exercise in useless rhetoric. I thought as this is a public forum
> (right?), that I was free to shower the thread with a few facts
concerning
> the topic of the NG.
>
No, simply a valid and correct argument based on the info being dropped
in my lap.
> Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you then I
suggest
> you refrain from reading me. I've received enough encouragement for
me to
> continue participation on relevent issues here.
>
BWAHAHAHA!!! Suddenly you do a COMPLETE 180* and start advocating
freedom of association and self-responsibility where before you were
pushing for censorship and dictatorial control! Funny how your ethics
change when you're the one doing the trolling , Mark.
--
Mark E Sievert
> In article <mj_o4.4628$LC4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> > message news:87vtlq$cbl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> <snip>
>
> > > You're just not even reading the threads are you? My statement was
> > > quite correct when extrapolating from the info given. Are you
> stupid?
> >
> > An imperfect arguement based on an imperfect statement of fact is to
> me IMO
> > an exercise in useless rhetoric. I thought as this is a public forum
> > (right?), that I was free to shower the thread with a few facts
> concerning
> > the topic of the NG.
> >
>
>
> No, simply a valid and correct argument based on the info being dropped
> in my lap.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg. My that is a valid argument :-)
>
>
> > Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you then I
> suggest
> > you refrain from reading me. I've received enough encouragement for
> me to
> > continue participation on relevent issues here.
> >
>
>
> BWAHAHAHA!!! Suddenly you do a COMPLETE 180* and start advocating
> freedom of association and self-responsibility where before you were
> pushing for censorship and dictatorial control! Funny how your ethics
> change when you're the one doing the trolling , Mark.
>
Trolls speaking of ethics, wow, 2-3 days fighting back in a flame-war does
not a troll make. It is interesting as I learn to fight back against the
KOF you presume to drag me down to your level. Nice try by the way.
I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my posting here.
Find ONE instance when I have used profanity, ONE. Good luck.
A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have always advocated
participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights and chivalry.
And all this is off topic for the subject line.
Good day,
Mark E. Sievert
Gear
> In article <TCjp4.6574$UP1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
*snip*
> > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my posting
> here.
*snip*
Pardon me Mary, WHAT?
Would you consider your inability to intellectually account for the beliefs
you claim to subscribe to a valid form of 'self-responsibility'?
Do you believe that ignoring me or subverting my prompts for apologetics
with offers to 'meet me like a man' validates your faith?
Do either of those two actions fall under the category
'self-responsibility'?
In fact why don't _you_ DEFINE 'self-responsibility' so everyone can see
once and for all that Gear is just an asshole with a giant chip on his
shoulder who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Prove me wrong. Shine Mary.
Get over yourself pal. You stand for nothing. At least not anything you can
reasonably explain. Your endorsement means shit. How can you endorse a
behavior you yourself don't have the balls or the education to adhere to?
You can't.
You don't.
You aren't smart enough.
The only thing worse than a well-educated christian is a loud-mouthed,
ignorant one.
Have you even read a bible?
I have. Cover to cover. Many times. That's how I know you're full of shit.
Oh and don't forget, I said nothing about christianity. You did. We wouldn't
even be having this brow beating if you would have kept your big fucking
mouth shut and stayed 'on-topic' like you love to tell people you always do.
But then that wouldn't be christian of you would it?
Big fucking hypocrite. Nothing more.
Gear
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> > In article <mj_o4.4628$LC4.111741@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com>
wrote in
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > You're just not even reading the threads are you? My statement
was
> > > > quite correct when extrapolating from the info given. Are you
> > stupid?
> > >
> > > An imperfect arguement based on an imperfect statement of fact is
to
> > me IMO
> > > an exercise in useless rhetoric. I thought as this is a public
forum
> > > (right?), that I was free to shower the thread with a few facts
> > concerning
> > > the topic of the NG.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No, simply a valid and correct argument based on the info being
dropped
> > in my lap.
>
> Which came first, the chicken or the egg.
neither.
> My that is a valid argument :-)
No that was a question.
> >
> >
> > > Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you then I
> > suggest
> > > you refrain from reading me. I've received enough encouragement
for
> > me to
> > > continue participation on relevent issues here.
> > >
> >
> >
> > BWAHAHAHA!!! Suddenly you do a COMPLETE 180* and start advocating
> > freedom of association and self-responsibility where before you were
> > pushing for censorship and dictatorial control! Funny how your
ethics
> > change when you're the one doing the trolling , Mark.
> >
>
> Trolls speaking of ethics, wow, 2-3 days fighting back in a flame-
war does
> not a troll make.
What flame war?
It is interesting as I learn to fight back against the
> KOF you presume to drag me down to your level.
"Fight back?" You mean, "learn to post."
Nice try by the way.
>
> I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my posting
here.
> Find ONE instance when I have used profanity, ONE.
Completely irrelevant.
Good luck.
>
> A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have always
advocated
> participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights and
chivalry.
Relevant as Chills sees them.
>
> And all this is off topic for the subject line.
Conversations evolve.
>
> Good day,
>
Always.
Mark E Sievert
> > In article <TCjp4.6574$UP1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my posting
> > here.
>
You are wrong, Heywood commented on "xtians" , and that is where my posting
starts on the matter. Check the archives.
Mark E Sievert
<Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message news:88afha$j71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <TCjp4.6574$UP1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> > > In article <mj_o4.4628$LC4.111741@bgtnsc04-
> > > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com>
> wrote in
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > You're just not even reading the threads are you? My statement
> was
> > > > > quite correct when extrapolating from the info given. Are you
> > > stupid?
> > > >
> > > > An imperfect arguement based on an imperfect statement of fact is
> to
> > > me IMO
> > > > an exercise in useless rhetoric. I thought as this is a public
> forum
> > > > (right?), that I was free to shower the thread with a few facts
> > > concerning
> > > > the topic of the NG.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No, simply a valid and correct argument based on the info being
> dropped
> > > in my lap.
> >
> > Which came first, the chicken or the egg.
>
>
> neither.
>
>
> > My that is a valid argument :-)
>
>
> No that was a question.
Did you see a question mark? < - Like that one.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you then I
> > > suggest
> > > > you refrain from reading me. I've received enough encouragement
> for
> > > me to
> > > > continue participation on relevent issues here.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BWAHAHAHA!!! Suddenly you do a COMPLETE 180* and start advocating
> > > freedom of association and self-responsibility where before you were
> > > pushing for censorship and dictatorial control! Funny how your
> ethics
> > > change when you're the one doing the trolling , Mark.
> > >
> >
> > Trolls speaking of ethics, wow, 2-3 days fighting back in a flame-
> war does
> > not a troll make.
>
>
> What flame war?
Pick one.
>
> It is interesting as I learn to fight back against the
> > KOF you presume to drag me down to your level.
>
>
>
> "Fight back?" You mean, "learn to post."
>
> Nice try by the way.
> >
> > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my posting
> here.
> > Find ONE instance when I have used profanity, ONE.
>
>
> Completely irrelevant.
To you maybe, certainly not to me.
>
> Good luck.
> >
> > A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have always
> advocated
> > participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights and
> chivalry.
>
>
> Relevant as Chills sees them.
You honor me by comparing me to Chillandra, thank you.
>
>
> >
> > And all this is off topic for the subject line.
>
>
> Conversations evolve.
And end.
Mark E. Sievert
Gear
Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:midq4.12132$%M5.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > message news:88afha$j71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <TCjp4.6574$UP1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my
posting
> > > here.
> >
So I'm right on every other point. Thanks anyway but I already knew that.
See how it looks when you're too much of a coward to catagoricly respond
Heywood mention "xtians"? Out of the blue for no reason at all? I think you
better go get that section of text and quote him directly. In context.
Before you try to back out like a dog with your tail between your legs,
remember burden of proof rests on you because you made the suggestion that
this conversation came about as a result of Haywood unwarranted comments.
Let's see em Mary.
Gear
Mark E Sievert
Put your guns away for a while and get a grip on reality. As you refuse to
jump when I say so, so neither do I, big guy. But I have noticed you
couldn't find a stamp yet. ;-)
Gear
>
> Gear <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Oqgq4.345$r05....@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
> >
> > Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:midq4.12132$%M5.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > Gear <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:c64q4.47$r05....@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
> > > >
> > > > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote
in
> > > > message news:88afha$j71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > In article
> <TCjp4.6574$UP1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > > > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *snip*
> > > >
> > > > > > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my
> > posting
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > *snip*
> > > >
> > > > Pardon me Mary, WHAT?
> > > >
> > > > Would you consider your inability to intellectually account for the
> > > beliefs
> > > > you claim to subscribe to a valid form of 'self-responsibility'?
Well would you?
> > > >
> > > > Do you believe that ignoring me or subverting my prompts for
> apologetics
> > > > with offers to 'meet me like a man' validates your faith?
Well do you?
> > > >
> > > > Do either of those two actions fall under the category
> > > > 'self-responsibility'?
Do they?
> > > >
> > > > In fact why don't _you_ DEFINE 'self-responsibility' so everyone can
> see
> > > > once and for all that Gear is just an asshole with a giant chip on
his
> > > > shoulder who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Come on then.
> > > >
> > > > Prove me wrong. Shine Mary.
Of course if you can't...........
> > > >
> > > > Get over yourself pal. You stand for nothing. At least not anything
> you
> > > can
> > > > reasonably explain. Your endorsement means shit. How can you endorse
a
> > > > behavior you yourself don't have the balls or the education to
adhere
> > to?
How can you then?
> > > >
> > > > You can't.
> > > > You don't.
> > > > You aren't smart enough.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing worse than a well-educated christian is a
loud-mouthed,
> > > > ignorant one.
> > > >
> > > > Have you even read a bible?
Have you?
> > > >
> > > > I have. Cover to cover. Many times. That's how I know you're full of
> > shit.
> > > >
> > > > Oh and don't forget, I said nothing about christianity. You did.
> > >
> > > You are wrong, Heywood commented on "xtians" , and that is where my
> > posting
> > > starts on the matter. Check the archives.
Post the archive for all to see how wrong I am then.
That along with an answer on everything else and you'll have me properly
defeated.
> >
> > So I'm right on every other point. Thanks anyway but I already knew
that.
> > See how it looks when you're too much of a coward to catagoricly respond
This is how : You're a fucking coward.
> Put your guns away for a while and get a grip on reality.
No, I don't think I'll be putting any guns away.
Reality? What the hell do you know about reality?
Why don't you tell me all about reality.
> As you refuse to
> jump when I say so, so neither do I, big guy.
Oh so you're waiting for the right moment to respond? Realize that while you
may have some secretly brilliant scheme for remaining silent, it looks
remakably like you just can't think of anything intelligent to say.
>But I have noticed you
> couldn't find a stamp yet. ;-)
What's that supposed to be? Witty?
We've already been all over that haven't we? Or rather I have.
Why would I write you a letter? I've been writing since we bumped into each
other and you can't answer shit.
How would snail mail change that?
Tell me what difference a stamped letter makes? You trolling for may
address? Is that it?
What exactly are you going to do? Stalk my wife? Try to hurt my child?
That would be wise..
Oh I get it. You want me to make a goddamn fool out of you just between us.
Forget it Mary. In this forum I will be all over you every single time you
say the smallest thing I can latch on to.
Mostly because you're an ignorant christian with a big mouth and little
biblical understanding, but also because you turned out to be a lazy coward.
All traits I cannot tolerate for an instant in a human.
>
> >
> > Heywood mention "xtians"? Out of the blue for no reason at all? I think
> you
> > better go get that section of text and quote him directly. In context.
Well then where is it? That's what I thought.
> > Before you try to back out like a dog with your tail between your legs,
> > remember burden of proof rests on you because you made the suggestion
that
> > this conversation came about as a result of Haywood unwarranted
comments.
I don't see any Haywood quotes here Mary.
Like a cowardly fucking dog .
> >
> > Let's see em Mary.
Well then?
> > > We wouldn't
> > > > even be having this brow beating if you would have kept your big
> fucking
> > > > mouth shut and stayed 'on-topic' like you love to tell people you
> always
> > > do.
> > > >
> > > > But then that wouldn't be christian of you would it?
> > > >
> > > > Big fucking hypocrite. Nothing more.
> > > >
As usual I am completely accurate. You've got nothing to say. I'll take
default, I'm not too proud.
I have an idea - Why don't you don a hipbag and go tow little wagons with
dogs who wish they were dead and that dumb revisionist whore.
The two of you could have a fine time discussing 'reality'. Jay won't be a
prob. Pussy whipped beyond all recognition I'm sure.
Gear
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> message news:88afha$j71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com>
wrote in
> > > > In article <mj_o4.4628$LC4.111741@bgtnsc04-
> > > > "Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote in
Hey Marky, I don't do typo flames. So you used the wrong punctuation,
at least your grammar is respectable, if not your logic.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you
then I
> > > > suggest
> > > > > you refrain from reading me. I've received enough
encouragement
> > for
> > > > me to
> > > > > continue participation on relevent issues here.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BWAHAHAHA!!! Suddenly you do a COMPLETE 180* and start
advocating
> > > > freedom of association and self-responsibility where before you
were
> > > > pushing for censorship and dictatorial control! Funny how your
> > ethics
> > > > change when you're the one doing the trolling , Mark.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Trolls speaking of ethics, wow, 2-3 days fighting back in a
flame-
> > war does
> > > not a troll make.
> >
> >
> > What flame war?
>
> Pick one.
>
I'd have to have options to take my pick.
> >
> > It is interesting as I learn to fight back against the
> > > KOF you presume to drag me down to your level.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Fight back?" You mean, "learn to post."
> >
> > Nice try by the way.
> > >
> > > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my
posting
> > here.
> > > Find ONE instance when I have used profanity, ONE.
> >
> >
> > Completely irrelevant.
>
> To you maybe, certainly not to me.
>
Self responsibilty, which you have only brought up ONCE, in this thread
because I brought it up, makes the issue of use of profanity relevant
to the discourse? You're WAY off in left field now, troll-boy. Care to
try and bring it to a logical conclusion by showing how your avoidance
of profanity in this newsgroup means that A) it should be moderated and
B) you have been advocating self-responsibility by not ever mentioning
it. (Hint: It can't be done since the two suppositions are
contradictory.)
> >
> > Good luck.
> > >
> > > A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have always
> > advocated
> > > participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights and
> > chivalry.
> >
> >
> > Relevant as Chills sees them.
>
> You honor me by comparing me to Chillandra, thank you.
>
Ohhh, a transparent sidestep and a shlurp all in one sentence. How DO
you make being lame so efficient?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And all this is off topic for the subject line.
> >
> >
> > Conversations evolve.
>
> And end.
>
When you realize you're not making sense, Marky, you stop responding,
true.
> Mark E. Sievert
--
Copyright 2000
~ Father O'Blivion
SubGenius Knight Of Fire
yetikin.cjb.net ootikof.org www.subgenius.com
Mark E Sievert
Half a compliment, so I'll return a paucity of a thank you. And I didn't
use the wrong punctuation, I meant it as a statement.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry if you took it personally, if my posting bothers you
> then I
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > you refrain from reading me. I've received enough
> encouragement
> > > for
> > > > > me to
> > > > > > continue participation on relevent issues here.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BWAHAHAHA!!! Suddenly you do a COMPLETE 180* and start
> advocating
> > > > > freedom of association and self-responsibility where before you
> were
> > > > > pushing for censorship and dictatorial control! Funny how your
> > > ethics
> > > > > change when you're the one doing the trolling , Mark.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Trolls speaking of ethics, wow, 2-3 days fighting back in a
> flame-
> > > war does
> > > > not a troll make.
> > >
> > >
> > > What flame war?
> >
> > Pick one.
> >
>
> I'd have to have options to take my pick.
I don't have time to churn archives so I'll concede a point.
I might make it back later.
>
>
> > >
> > > It is interesting as I learn to fight back against the
> > > > KOF you presume to drag me down to your level.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Fight back?" You mean, "learn to post."
> > >
> > > Nice try by the way.
> > > >
> > > > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my
> posting
> > > here.
> > > > Find ONE instance when I have used profanity, ONE.
> > >
> > >
> > > Completely irrelevant.
> >
> > To you maybe, certainly not to me.
> >
>
> Self responsibilty, which you have only brought up ONCE, in this thread
> because I brought it up, makes the issue of use of profanity relevant
> to the discourse?
Once in this thread? That has been my position from the first day I posted
to this news group in January 1999. I don't think you were around here
then.
You're WAY off in left field now, troll-boy. Care to
> try and bring it to a logical conclusion by showing how your avoidance
> of profanity in this newsgroup means that A) it should be moderated
It should be moderated because of _my_avoidance? Do you read only me? Now
this has been fun to a point but do you read gear's posts? Come on now.
and
> B) you have been advocating self-responsibility by not ever mentioning
> it. (Hint: It can't be done since the two suppositions are
> contradictory.)
And I advocate gentle behavior by opening doors for ladies, but I don't have
to tell them why for them to understand my meaning and intent, now do I?
Neither do I have to carry arround a sign with a top 10 list of why I'm me.
I guess you don't read all my posts to this group or you would know that I
offered to change my stance on a moderated forum to Sir Obi for a little bit
of Obi's much vaunted "graciousness"
Any answer?
>
>
> > >
> > > Good luck.
> > > >
> > > > A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have always
> > > advocated
> > > > participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights and
> > > chivalry.
> > >
> > >
> > > Relevant as Chills sees them.
> >
> > You honor me by comparing me to Chillandra, thank you.
> >
>
> Ohhh, a transparent sidestep and a shlurp all in one sentence. How DO
> you make being lame so efficient?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And all this is off topic for the subject line.
> > >
> > >
> > > Conversations evolve.
> >
> > And end.
> >
>
> When you realize you're not making sense, Marky, you stop responding,
> true.
I'm still responding, so by your admission and logic, I must be making
sence. ;-)
Mark E Sievert
tsk, tsk, does your wife know you post like this? I mean come on now, I
know it's fun trying to ride people like this, but you're laying it on a bit
thick now. Really, it's fun to a point, hiding your real identity behind a
nom de plume, but it's clear this is not the real you, For you to have a
wife and a child and all the ordinary responsibilities that come with
family, requires a good portion of normality.
You're not really a jerk, but you play one on usenet.
Mark E. Sievert
PS I saw your wedding band on your left hand in the lovely pictures you so
thoughtfully posted. So that let out all the air you've been blowing at me.
Good bye Mr gums.
Gear
Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:m5Eq4.17320$LC4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
As a matter of fact, she's laughing at you as I write.
She is certainly a mile and a half more hard-core than you or I. At least
one person here can vouch for that truth, but I'll trust his good taste not
to.
You pompous, judgmental asshole. Since when do you have the right to dictate
normalcy?
It so hard for you to believe someone would actually live what they say?
Of course it is. You're a christian. Anything other than contradiction and
hypocrisy is unimaginable for you.
You didn't answer shit. Ergo you are a coward.
It's never been about being tough and you know it. It's always been about
being smart. Or smarter. You have shown time and time again now that you are
neither.
You know you are not as smart as I am. You know you are not as well educated
as I am. You know damn good and well I have a far greater understanding of
christianity than you do. I'm better read. I have a better vocabulary. I bet
my cock is even bigger than yours.
If I were wrong you wouldn't constantly ignore my questions and accusations.
Making this an issue of toughness is quite simply cowardice. You subvert
because you cannot answer. You try to involve my family because you have
nothing. You suggest that I am really just a friendly guy playing a game
because you are too uncomfortable with the idea that someone could hate you
as much as I say I do. I can assure you I hate you. I hate everything you
pretend to stand for. I hate your cowardly bullshit. I hate your manner. I
hate you two-dimensional uneducated judgment of you fellow human being as if
you somehow have the right.
Although I truly hate everything about you that I know, we both know I'm not
stupid enough to threaten you personally.
So quit fishing. You're are the first idiot I've verbally slaughtered.
Most of all I hate you inability to explain yourself. That's what I hate the
most. No matter what someone believes and regardless of if I agree, if they
unable to properly account for said believes, they are beneath reproach and
below respect. If they believe NOTHING and say as much, I expect them to be
able to explain as much. If belief are never brought up, you'll never hear a
peep about it from me.
I'll tell you what a responsible family man I am - I do not fill the minds
of my family with ignorant lies. Also I retain the ability, hardware,
training and proficiency to protect my family in ANY situation.
In addition I do not post my real name or address on Usenet as an invitation
for every psycho or ignorant fuckwit within flying distance to drop on by.
That doesn't make you tough, that makes you stupid Mary.
If you aren't stupid then you are ignorant of the ways of the modern world.
Both are inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.
Gear
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Mark E Sievert" <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <Father H. J. O'Blivion>; Dkr. KOF <psyb3...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> message news:88echb$a4v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You worded it in the interrogative.
Of course you will.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > It is interesting as I learn to fight back against the
> > > > > KOF you presume to drag me down to your level.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Fight back?" You mean, "learn to post."
> > > >
> > > > Nice try by the way.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have endorsed self-responsibility from the beginning of my
> > posting
> > > > here.
> > > > > Find ONE instance when I have used profanity, ONE.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Completely irrelevant.
> > >
> > > To you maybe, certainly not to me.
> > >
> >
> > Self responsibilty, which you have only brought up ONCE, in this
thread
> > because I brought it up, makes the issue of use of profanity
relevant
> > to the discourse?
>
> Once in this thread? That has been my position from the first day I
posted
> to this news group in January 1999.
Your position as I have seen it is that you think this newsgroup should
become moderated. You have never once stated here that everyone should
self moderate by either killfiling or ceasing discourse with those whos
postings they disaprove of. That would be self responsibility and you
have advocated the opposite.
I don't think you were around here
> then.
>
> You're WAY off in left field now, troll-boy. Care to
> > try and bring it to a logical conclusion by showing how your
avoidance
> > of profanity in this newsgroup means that A) it should be moderated
>
> It should be moderated because of _my_avoidance?
Exactly my question.
Do you read only me?
The answer to that is obvious.
Now
> this has been fun to a point but do you read gear's posts?
Yes.
Come on now.
So are you now trying to say that only Gear should be moderated?
>
> and
> > B) you have been advocating self-responsibility by not ever
mentioning
> > it. (Hint: It can't be done since the two suppositions are
> > contradictory.)
>
> And I advocate gentle behavior by opening doors for ladies, but I
don't have
> to tell them why for them to understand my meaning and intent, now do
I?
Non sequiter and completly irrelevant. Have you been diagnosed with ADD?
> Neither do I have to carry arround a sign with a top 10 list of why
I'm me.
No one is asking you to.
>
> I guess you don't read all my posts to this group or you would know
that I
> offered to change my stance on a moderated forum to Sir Obi for a
little bit
> of Obi's much vaunted "graciousness"
>
> Any answer?
What's the question, nimrod?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Good luck.
> > > > >
> > > > > A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have
always
> > > > advocated
> > > > > participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights
and
> > > > chivalry.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Relevant as Chills sees them.
> > >
> > > You honor me by comparing me to Chillandra, thank you.
> > >
> >
> > Ohhh, a transparent sidestep and a shlurp all in one sentence. How
DO
> > you make being lame so efficient?
> >
No answer, eh?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And all this is off topic for the subject line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Conversations evolve.
> > >
> > > And end.
> > >
> >
> > When you realize you're not making sense, Marky, you stop
responding,
> > true.
>
> I'm still responding, so by your admission and logic, I must be making
> sence. ;-)
>
No, and I hope you can struggle to see the illogic in your comments on
my logic. How poetic it is that you make such a false turn in logic in
a statement attempting to insult my understanding of logic. Here's a
trick to help you understand logical thought progression: substitute
the variables with things you are intimately familiar with. Like this:
Me; When realize you're out of gas, you pull over to get more at a
station. Then you; Well then, since I'm not at a station, I must have
plenty of gas! Is it becoming clear now? Or are you truely beyond the
capacity to reason?
Mark E Sievert
My mistake, but at least you now know my intent.
My position regardless how you see it is that men should comport themselves
as gentlemen, I mean look at ourselves, we are comunicating with technology
that was in the realm of science fiction when we were born, yet look at how
we deal with each other. We've come no farther as a society as the Roman
Empire. The government in Rome kept the citizenry happy and content with
bread and circuses, we have food stamps and the WWF. A bit off topic, but i
thought I'd share a view.
>
> I don't think you were around here
> > then.
> >
> > You're WAY off in left field now, troll-boy. Care to
> > > try and bring it to a logical conclusion by showing how your
> avoidance
> > > of profanity in this newsgroup means that A) it should be moderated
> >
> > It should be moderated because of _my_avoidance?
>
>
> Exactly my question.
>
> Do you read only me?
>
> The answer to that is obvious.
>
> Now
> > this has been fun to a point but do you read gear's posts?
>
> Yes.
>
> Come on now.
>
> So are you now trying to say that only Gear should be moderated?
Self-Moderated maybe.
>
> >
> > and
> > > B) you have been advocating self-responsibility by not ever
> mentioning
> > > it. (Hint: It can't be done since the two suppositions are
> > > contradictory.)
> >
> > And I advocate gentle behavior by opening doors for ladies, but I
> don't have
> > to tell them why for them to understand my meaning and intent, now do
> I?
>
>
> Non sequiter and completly irrelevant. Have you been diagnosed with ADD?
Advanced Dungeon & Dragons? No, I stopped playing before that version came
out. :-)
>
> > Neither do I have to carry arround a sign with a top 10 list of why
> I'm me.
>
> No one is asking you to.
Look above again to your post, you accused me of being self-moderating and
keeping it to my self.
>
>
> >
> > I guess you don't read all my posts to this group or you would know
> that I
> > offered to change my stance on a moderated forum to Sir Obi for a
> little bit
> > of Obi's much vaunted "graciousness"
> >
> > Any answer?
>
> What's the question, nimrod?
It was an interrogative. :-)
Okay, for the record. If I abandon my stance on a moderated forum, will I
receive a bit more civility from the KOF?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good luck.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I have
> always
> > > > > advocated
> > > > > > participation on relevent issues here pertaining to knights
> and
> > > > > chivalry.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Relevant as Chills sees them.
> > > >
> > > > You honor me by comparing me to Chillandra, thank you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ohhh, a transparent sidestep and a shlurp all in one sentence. How
> DO
> > > you make being lame so efficient?
> > >
>
>
> No answer, eh?
Sorry, I'm blind in one eye. I don't always get every thing when I scan
through a rather large post like this one. That's why I like to snip, which
I have not in this post because you like to call me on technical stuff like
that.
Your wrong though, I participated in Illoki's thread on what constitutes
"knighthood in Cyberspace". I even catagorized about 6 different types or
styles of knighthood.
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And all this is off topic for the subject line.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Conversations evolve.
> > > >
> > > > And end.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When you realize you're not making sense, Marky, you stop
> responding,
> > > true.
> >
> > I'm still responding, so by your admission and logic, I must be making
> > sence. ;-)
> >
>
> No, and I hope you can struggle to see the illogic in your comments on
> my logic. How poetic it is that you make such a false turn in logic in
> a statement attempting to insult my understanding of logic. Here's a
> trick to help you understand logical thought progression: substitute
> the variables with things you are intimately familiar with. Like this:
> Me; When realize you're out of gas, you pull over to get more at a
> station. Then you; Well then, since I'm not at a station, I must have
> plenty of gas! Is it becoming clear now? Or are you truely beyond the
> capacity to reason?
To be sure I'm trying to lighten up and have a bit of fun too, you guys are
a life form I've never encountered before. Once we get through the facades,
we may not be all that different. Good Lord I may have just flamed
myself........I'm trying a little risk taking this week.
Mark E Sievert
Hearsay testimony from a fictional character, (That would be you),
inadmissable to be sure because you cannot prove it.
> She is certainly a mile and a half more hard-core than you or I. At least
> one person here can vouch for that truth, but I'll trust his good taste
not
> to.
I never questioned your wife, I questioned you.
>
> You pompous, judgmental asshole. Since when do you have the right to
dictate
> normalcy?
Dictate, no I observe.
>
> It so hard for you to believe someone would actually live what they say?
No, but since you were the one who butted into a thread that Heywood and I
were posting to, calling me ignorant and bigotted based on my mispelling of
the word Buhddist, actually spelled Buddhist. You flamed away all the while
spelling it Buddist. I still laugh when I think that you were so cock sure
of yourself that you had me there. You are by your standards set back then,
just as ignorant as you so often claim I am. That is why I don't beleive
anything about you as you present yourself to be.
> Of course it is. You're a christian. Anything other than contradiction and
> hypocrisy is unimaginable for you.
>
> You didn't answer shit. Ergo you are a coward.
> It's never been about being tough and you know it. It's always been about
> being smart. Or smarter. You have shown time and time again now that you
are
> neither.
"We are all ignorant, only on different subjects" Will Rodgers.
>
> You know you are not as smart as I am. You know you are not as well
educated
> as I am.
Yet you made the same mistake as I.
You know damn good and well I have a far greater understanding of
> christianity than you do. I'm better read. I have a better vocabulary. I
bet
> my cock is even bigger than yours.
>
> If I were wrong you wouldn't constantly ignore my questions and
accusations.
> Making this an issue of toughness is quite simply cowardice. You subvert
> because you cannot answer. You try to involve my family because you have
> nothing. You suggest that I am really just a friendly guy playing a game
> because you are too uncomfortable with the idea that someone could hate
you
> as much as I say I do. I can assure you I hate you. I hate everything you
> pretend to stand for. I hate your cowardly bullshit. I hate your manner. I
> hate you two-dimensional uneducated judgment of you fellow human being as
if
> you somehow have the right.
>
> Although I truly hate everything about you that I know, we both know I'm
not
> stupid enough to threaten you personally.
> So quit fishing. You're are the first idiot I've verbally slaughtered.
Be carefull how you choose your words, slaughter is a word for kill. Which
a resonable man may construe as a threat.
>
> Most of all I hate you inability to explain yourself. That's what I hate
the
> most. No matter what someone believes and regardless of if I agree, if the
y
> unable to properly account for said believes, they are beneath reproach
and
> below respect. If they believe NOTHING and say as much, I expect them to
be
> able to explain as much. If belief are never brought up, you'll never hear
a
> peep about it from me.
And why should I account myself, a man who does not hide behind funny names,
to one who is as ignorant (see my paragraph above) and phony as you?
>
> I'll tell you what a responsible family man I am - I do not fill the minds
> of my family with ignorant lies.
This very statement shows how far out you are. You know nothing of my
family nor my relationship with them.
Also I retain the ability, hardware,
> training and proficiency to protect my family in ANY situation.
> In addition I do not post my real name or address on Usenet as an
invitation
> for every psycho or ignorant fuckwit within flying distance to drop on by.
>
> That doesn't make you tough, that makes you stupid Mary.
>
> If you aren't stupid then you are ignorant of the ways of the modern
world.
>
> Both are inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Gear
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
You do say a lot of things, usually repeated ad nauseum, but as I said
before, you tipped your hat at the very start, and you have no credibility.
Sure, you can say what you want, but the truth of the matter is, it dosn't
matter. Not ONE person who knows me will for one minute believe what you
say of me. Those who do believe don't matter because they don't know me, or
I them.
Gentlemen know who gentlemen are. And that keeps me warm at night. I am
quite secure in my environment, and you will never breach in.
Mark E. Sievert
illoki
<giant snip >
If y'all are so self responsible guys, why the schoolyard squabble? I'm
beginning to think you two are becoming friends. Nice to see.
<grabbing my flame proof suit and an extinguisher as I head for the door>
aecs
Please people!! This is getting out of hand!!
Remember the basics. Let's find some common
ground ( as hard at it seems ) and declare a truce...
I am raising the white flag for all of you to see.....
Regards,
Enrique.
Gear
You asked if she knew. She does. She reads you as ignorant same as I.
That possibility hadn't occured to you in your fog so being uncomfortable
with the thought of a woman laugh at you, you attempt to back out of what
you started.
Nothing new for you mary.
>
> > She is certainly a mile and a half more hard-core than you or I. At
least
> > one person here can vouch for that truth, but I'll trust his good taste
> not
> > to.
>
> I never questioned your wife, I questioned you.
No, you assume she has something in common with you. She does not. Very
christian of you.
>
> >
> > You pompous, judgmental asshole. Since when do you have the right to
> dictate
> > normalcy?
>
> Dictate, no I observe.
Bullshit. If you simply observe what is normal is not an issue. Whatever is
simply is. You do not represent the norm. What you believe, think or fancy
you know is not representitive of society in general.
It is judgment and pompous to assume as much. That is what you did. To come
back now and say you simply observe is cowardly.
>
> >
> > It so hard for you to believe someone would actually live what they
say?
>
> No, but since you were the one who butted into a thread that Heywood and I
> were posting to, calling me ignorant and bigotted based on my mispelling
of
> the word Buhddist, actually spelled Buddhist. You flamed away all the
while
> spelling it Buddist. I still laugh when I think that you were so cock
sure
> of yourself that you had me there. You are by your standards set back
then,
> just as ignorant as you so often claim I am. That is why I don't beleive
> anything about you as you present yourself to be.
You really didn't get that did you?
Let me show you what exactly it is that happened - You made a spelling
error. When called to it you claim to have slipped up. I mispelled it. You
subsequently _LOOKED IT UP_ to correct me there-by proving on you own that
you didn't know how to spell the word to begin with. Ergo, you look stupid.
It's called trolling. It's not even a particularly good troll. Simple but
effective eh? Heh.
That is why I very clearly wrote "verbally slaughtered"
You aren't clever.
>
> >
> > Most of all I hate you inability to explain yourself. That's what I hate
> the
> > most. No matter what someone believes and regardless of if I agree, if
the
> y
> > unable to properly account for said believes, they are beneath reproach
> and
> > below respect. If they believe NOTHING and say as much, I expect them to
> be
> > able to explain as much. If belief are never brought up, you'll never
hear
> a
> > peep about it from me.
>
> And why should I account myself, a man who does not hide behind funny
names,
> to one who is as ignorant (see my paragraph above) and phony as you?
How exactly am I phony? Because I won't tell you my name? Lots of people
here know my name.
Why do you need it so bad?
I say because that fact that you give yours is the only thing you have to
parade around in your on-going effort to prove you're tough.
>
> >
> > I'll tell you what a responsible family man I am - I do not fill the
minds
> > of my family with ignorant lies.
>
> This very statement shows how far out you are. You know nothing of my
> family nor my relationship with them.
What did I say about you? What did I say about any family you may or may not
have? Nothing.
I spoke of myself and mine. Read it again. I don't know what you're talking
about.
Seems like you might have a bit of a guilty conscience there mary.
>
> Also I retain the ability, hardware,
> > training and proficiency to protect my family in ANY situation.
> > In addition I do not post my real name or address on Usenet as an
> invitation
> > for every psycho or ignorant fuckwit within flying distance to drop on
by.
> >
> > That doesn't make you tough, that makes you stupid Mary.
> >
> > If you aren't stupid then you are ignorant of the ways of the modern
> world.
> >
> > Both are inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > Gear
>
> Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
What? Are you a child?
Fuck you.
>
> You do say a lot of things, usually repeated ad nauseum,
Yes I do. I love to hear myself talk.
>but as I said
> before, you tipped your hat at the very start, and you have no
credibility.
Are you sure about that?
>
> Sure, you can say what you want, but the truth of the matter is, it dosn't
> matter. Not ONE person who knows me will for one minute believe what you
> say of me. Those who do believe don't matter because they don't know me,
or
> I them.
Yeah whatever but we're still talking about you and I. Not your reverend.
Not your friends Not your family. Not my Mom. Just you and me sport. But
you're a coward and cowards always bring someone they think can accomplish
what they cannot.
>
> Gentlemen know who gentlemen are. And that keeps me warm at night. I am
> quite secure in my environment, and you will never breach in.
Happy for ya mary. Have I told you how cute you look in that little dress?
Gear
Vitriol
mumbled:
:>Gear <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
:>news:zUHq4.679$r05....@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
[snippola]
:>> So quit fishing. You're are the first idiot I've verbally slaughtered.
:>
:>Be carefull how you choose your words, slaughter is a word for kill. Which
:>a resonable man may construe as a threat.
If you insist on quibbling, Marky...
Gear said "verbally slaughtered".
Do you expect us to believe you, a supposedly grown man, are fearfull of someone
*talking* you to death? Pu-leeze.
[snip part deux]
Mark E Sievert
aecs <ae...@coqui.net> wrote in message
news:LH%q4.50163$ox5.13...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
You are correct, I will stop posting in response to Gear.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Sievert
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
<snip>
> > > >
> > > > Hey Marky, I don't do typo flames. So you used the wrong
> > punctuation,
> > > > at least your grammar is respectable, if not your logic.
> > >
> > > Half a compliment, so I'll return a paucity of a thank you. And I
> > didn't
> > > use the wrong punctuation, I meant it as a statement.
> >
> >
> > You worded it in the interrogative.
>
> My mistake, but at least you now know my intent.
>
Not really. You asked which came first, chicken or egg. I don't think
you really wanted an answer, but it was a question.
> >
<snip>
>
> My position regardless how you see it is that men should comport
themselves
> as gentlemen,
With you as the arbiter of what is gentlemanly, no doubt.
> I mean look at ourselves, we are comunicating with technology
> that was in the realm of science fiction when we were born, yet look
at how
> we deal with each other. We've come no farther as a society as the
Roman
> Empire.
We are going the way of it also.
The government in Rome kept the citizenry happy and content with
> bread and circuses, we have food stamps and the WWF. A bit off
topic, but i
> thought I'd share a view.
>
> >
> > I don't think you were around here
> > > then.
> > >
> > > You're WAY off in left field now, troll-boy. Care to
> > > > try and bring it to a logical conclusion by showing how your
> > avoidance
> > > > of profanity in this newsgroup means that A) it should be
moderated
> > >
> > > It should be moderated because of _my_avoidance?
> >
> >
> > Exactly my question.
> >
> > Do you read only me?
> >
> > The answer to that is obvious.
> >
> > Now
> > > this has been fun to a point but do you read gear's posts?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Come on now.
> >
> > So are you now trying to say that only Gear should be moderated?
>
> Self-Moderated maybe.
>
Then you have done a 180, as I previously stated. You really went far
out of your way to get to that point.
> >
> > >
> > > and
> > > > B) you have been advocating self-responsibility by not ever
> > mentioning
> > > > it. (Hint: It can't be done since the two suppositions are
> > > > contradictory.)
> > >
> > > And I advocate gentle behavior by opening doors for ladies, but I
> > don't have
> > > to tell them why for them to understand my meaning and intent,
now do
> > I?
> >
> >
> > Non sequiter and completly irrelevant. Have you been diagnosed with
ADD?
>
> Advanced Dungeon & Dragons? No, I stopped playing before that
version came
> out. :-)
>
That answer is more telling than it seems on it's face.
> >
> > > Neither do I have to carry arround a sign with a top 10 list of
why
> > I'm me.
> >
> > No one is asking you to.
>
> Look above again to your post, you accused me of being self-
moderating and
> keeping it to my self.
>
I accused you of nothing of the sort. But you have confirmed one thing
I suspected, you really aren't firing on all your cylindars. What you
advocated at first was that this be a moderated forum, now you're
trying to say that that's the same thing as taking responsibility for
yourself.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I guess you don't read all my posts to this group or you would
know
> > that I
> > > offered to change my stance on a moderated forum to Sir Obi for a
> > little bit
> > > of Obi's much vaunted "graciousness"
> > >
> > > Any answer?
> >
> > What's the question, nimrod?
>
> It was an interrogative. :-)
>
The interrogative part I got, it's the the question that requires the
answer requested by the interrogative that's not stated. First there's
an incomplete sentence about you volunteering to bend over for Obi,
then the request for an answer. As it stands I could say "yeah, 42" and
have supplied an answer.
> Okay, for the record. If I abandon my stance on a moderated forum,
will I
> receive a bit more civility from the KOF?
>
I doubt it. I, for one, see you as making an offer to change your value
system in order to have a nicer time. You're essentially saying "I'll
change my opinion about something if you be nice to me." Ir just shows
weakness and my guess is you'd only be held in even lower regard. At
least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to their misguided
belief systems out of a sense of integrity. Now, if you were to be
swayed by logic I bet you'd have more support.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good luck.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A COMPLETE 180* turn arround? Let me repeat myself I
have
> > always
> > > > > > advocated
> > > > > > > participation on relevent issues here pertaining to
knights
> > and
> > > > > > chivalry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Relevant as Chills sees them.
> > > > >
> > > > > You honor me by comparing me to Chillandra, thank you.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ohhh, a transparent sidestep and a shlurp all in one sentence.
How
> > DO
> > > > you make being lame so efficient?
> > > >
> >
> >
> > No answer, eh?
>
> Sorry, I'm blind in one eye. I don't always get every thing when I
scan
> through a rather large post like this one. That's why I like to
snip, which
> I have not in this post because you like to call me on technical
stuff like
> that.
>
Oh pissoff. I have mentioned before that it irritates me that you leave
in unwanted crap like sigs and snip the relevant stuff. I can and do
snip the no longer relevant text. There's a big difference.
> Your wrong though, I participated in Illoki's thread on what
constitutes
> "knighthood in Cyberspace". I even catagorized about 6 different
types or
> styles of knighthood.
>
I'm wrong about what? Are you saying that you're not efficient about
being lame?
More irrelevant, off the point meandering verbiage. You need to try and
make it sound like you're answering the questions when you dodge.
Misdirect, don't just dive for cover!
Once we get through the facades,
> we may not be all that different. Good Lord I may have just flamed
> myself........I'm trying a little risk taking this week.
>
maybe.
Gear
>
> Vitriol <DontSpa...@OOTIKOF.org> wrote in message
> news:c8ipasou6n7j7b6dv...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:21:10 GMT, "Mark E Sievert"
> <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net>
> > mumbled:
> >
> > :>news:zUHq4.679$r05....@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
> >
> > [snippola]
> >
> > :>> So quit fishing. You're are the first idiot I've verbally
slaughtered.
> > :>
> > :>Be carefull how you choose your words, slaughter is a word for kill.
> Which
> > :>a resonable man may construe as a threat.
> >
> > Gear said "verbally slaughtered".
> > Do you expect us to believe you, a supposedly grown man, are fearfull of
> someone
> > *talking* you to death? Pu-leeze.
>
> Well Gear was fantasizing that i would threaten his family, but then I
> didn't think you would call him on that now would we?
Oh is that is now? You can summon my name for conversation or to try to make
a point, but will no long speak directly to me?
Have I called you a coward yet? Coward.
I know you use the antics and tactics of children, are you a little girl as
well?
Heh.
How about you kill-file me and we'll call it a SPANK............
Gear
Game, set , match.
Gear
Game.
Set.
Match.
Another opponent defeated. Another who would stand in defiance rendered
speechless.
Another wholly stripped of his capability to respond.
So abhorred by the thought of typing to me he can only bring himself to
reference The Mighty Name Riotgear, The Lion, Bill, The Founder and The
Pastor (AKA Gear) in an attempt to substantiate his own pathetic effort.
Chewing them up. spitting them out.
It's what I do.
To Gear goes The Day.
WHOO FUCKING HAAAAA!! I love this job.
In honor of this total and utter, not to mention blatantly obvious defeat;
another ignorant fool exposed, I resurrect the Old Name.
THE LION
Gear
Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KGjr4.1347$PA2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>At
> > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to their misguided
> > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
>
> And I have with Gear.
At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
Sorry Hay. Carry on.
THE LION
Gear
QBall <l-...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ScmtOOqsjoGWNSR=G5XIVk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:48:43 GMT, "illoki" <ill...@aunti-spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sir Obi ~ Sigzilla ofOOTIKOF" <Obiwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:4104-38A...@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >> DontSpa...@OOTIKOF.org (Vitriol) commented:
> >> ><mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> mumbled:
> >> >>Gear <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[snippola]
> >>
> >> >>>So quit fishing. You're are the first idiot I've
> >> >>>verbally slaughtered.
> >>
> >> >>Be carefull how you choose your words,
> >> >>slaughter is a word for kill. Which a resonable
> >> >>man may construe as a threat.
> >>
> >> >If you insist on quibbling, Marky...
> >> >Gear said "verbally slaughtered".
> >>
> >> >Do you expect us to believe you, a supposedly
> >> >grown man, are fearfull of someone *talking*
> >> >you to death? Pu-leeze.
> >
> >
> >Not even euthanasia?
>
> I do not think he has ever visited the continent, let alone known any of
> the children.
Isn't that the place with the tanks, tottering whores, and funny little
tables?
How the hell would I know my bed faced the wrong direction?
Who is Guy Jin anyway? From what I understand he's some stupid, uncultured,
oafish fool in Bermuda shorts and running shoes. Lemme know if you see him
coming.
THE LION
>
> >
> > he always did have his way
> >> of keeping some folks awake at night.
> >>
> >
> >I dunno Obi, the whole exchange has put me under and I keep waking up
> >mumbling something about dead horses.
> >
> >> >[snip part deux]
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Sir Obi
> >>
> >>
> >> <~~~~~~~~~~~Sir Obiwannosi~~~~~~~~~~>
> >> <~~~~~~~~~~ http://ootikof.org ~~~~~~~~~>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> This E-mail registered Y2K compatible
> with the United Association of Those Who
> Just Don't Give A Fuck Society of
> Greater Upyoursville County.*
>
> Knights~ ~Of~ ~Fire
> The Second Coming of Q
>
> http://www.ootikof.org
> http://newsgrpwebs.simplenet.com/Katzenjammer
> http://www.elmobjockomo.com
>
> * the views of the association do not reflect the views of AT&T, nor any
of it's subsidiaries, and/or families....... at least we hope not.
>
>
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
"Gear" <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Mark E Sievert <mark.e....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:KGjr4.1347$PA2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >>At
> > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to their
misguided
> > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> >
>
> At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
>
> Sorry Hay. Carry on.
>
> THE LION
>
>
Still awaiting his response, but let's face it. There's not much point.
The man (?) doesn't comprehend basic functions of logic and then digs
himself into deeper holes commenting on mine. He waffles back and forth
on what he asserts. He wants to assert the Jesus myth as literal fact
and then wants OTHERS to prove a negative. Critical thought is not this
guys strong point.
Mark E Sievert
> > news:KGjr4.1347$PA2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> > > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > >>At
> > > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to their
> misguided
> > > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> > >
> >
> > At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
> >
> > Sorry Hay. Carry on.
> >
> > THE LION
> >
> >
>
> Still awaiting his response, but let's face it. There's not much point.
> The man (?) doesn't comprehend basic functions of logic and then digs
> himself into deeper holes commenting on mine. He waffles back and forth
> on what he asserts. He wants to assert the Jesus myth as literal fact
> and then wants OTHERS to prove a negative. Critical thought is not this
> guys strong point.
>
And the Jesus myth appears where in this thread?
Didn't care to respond to my questions, so the logic dodge.
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
> > In article <penr4.1276$r05.1...@typhoon-la.pbi.net>,
> > "Gear" <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > news:KGjr4.1347$PA2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> > > > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > >>At
> > > > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to their
> > misguided
> > > > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
> > >
> > > Sorry Hay. Carry on.
> > >
> > > THE LION
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Still awaiting his response, but let's face it. There's not much
point.
> > The man (?) doesn't comprehend basic functions of logic and then
digs
> > himself into deeper holes commenting on mine. He waffles back and
forth
> > on what he asserts. He wants to assert the Jesus myth as literal
fact
> > and then wants OTHERS to prove a negative. Critical thought is not
this
> > guys strong point.
> >
>
> And the Jesus myth appears where in this thread?
Who said anything about THIS thread?
> Didn't care to respond to my questions, so the logic dodge.
IKAYBWAI and PKB all in one. I respoded to most if not all of your
questions. You are the one with the track record for only answering the
questions you can answer with wanna-be-cute remarks.
Mark E Sievert
> In article <oTVr4.4694$tk7.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > In article <penr4.1276$r05.1...@typhoon-la.pbi.net>,
> > > "Gear" <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > news:KGjr4.1347$PA2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> > > > > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > >
> > > > >>At
> > > > > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to their
> > > misguided
> > > > > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Hay. Carry on.
> > > >
> > > > THE LION
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Still awaiting his response, but let's face it. There's not much
> point.
> > > The man (?) doesn't comprehend basic functions of logic and then
> digs
> > > himself into deeper holes commenting on mine. He waffles back and
> forth
> > > on what he asserts. He wants to assert the Jesus myth as literal
> fact
> > > and then wants OTHERS to prove a negative. Critical thought is not
> this
> > > guys strong point.
> > >
> >
> > And the Jesus myth appears where in this thread?
>
>
> Who said anything about THIS thread?
>
> > Didn't care to respond to my questions, so the logic dodge.
>
> IKAYBWAI and PKB all in one. I respoded to most if not all of your
> questions. You are the one with the track record for only answering the
> questions you can answer with wanna-be-cute remarks.
Cute remarks? Mearly a defense mechanism to your insults.
You want me to talk about my religion again? Bear in mind I have no
imperative to prove what I believe is true. What i believe is good enough
for me, as I have little concern towards your beliefs or unbeliefs.
I also believe ALL religion has value and I hold no opinion as to their
value if it is not mine. I do not insult other faiths as I have seen
Christianity insulted here, however I was wrong to stand in it's defense
because my faith is incorruptable, just as God is incorruptable to the words
of men.
Mark E. Sievert
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
> > In article <oTVr4.4694$tk7.422406@bgtnsc05-
> > > > In article <penr4.1276$r05.1...@typhoon-la.pbi.net>,
> > > > "Gear" <mrt...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >
message
> > > > > news:KGjr4.1347$PA2.122260@bgtnsc06-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> > > > > > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > >>At
> > > > > > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to
their
> > > > misguided
> > > > > > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> > > > > >
Why so defensive?
> You want me to talk about my religion again? Bear in mind I have no
> imperative to prove what I believe is true.
Then admit that your assertions are philisophically bankrupt. In the
study of philosophy it is the imperitave of the one doing the asserting
to prove that what they assert is both true and accurate.
What i believe is good enough
> for me, as I have little concern towards your beliefs or unbeliefs.
Then why do you bring it up all the time. And don't say I brought it
up. How would I even know what you thought about religion unless you
voluteered it.
> I also believe ALL religion has value and I hold no opinion as to
their
> value if it is not mine. I do not insult other faiths as I have seen
> Christianity insulted here, however I was wrong to stand in it's
defense
> because my faith is incorruptable, just as God is incorruptable to
the words
> of men.
>
> Mark E. Sievert
> >
As long as you admit that it is FAITH and not truth then we agree.
Mark E Sievert
> In article <8Fhs4.5751$k66.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,> > > > > > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>At
> > > > > > > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to
> their
> > > > > misguided
> > > > > > > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry Hay. Carry on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > THE LION
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still awaiting his response, but let's face it. There's not much
> > > point.
> > > > > The man (?) doesn't comprehend basic functions of logic and then
> > > digs
> > > > > himself into deeper holes commenting on mine. He waffles back
> and
> > > forth
> > > > > on what he asserts. He wants to assert the Jesus myth as literal
> > > fact
> > > > > and then wants OTHERS to prove a negative.
Where did I ask anyone to prove Jesus did not exist? You are the one
digging here.
Critical thought is
> not
> > > this
> > > > > guys strong point.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the Jesus myth appears where in this thread?
> > >
> > >
> > > Who said anything about THIS thread?
> > >
> > > > Didn't care to respond to my questions, so the logic dodge.
> > >
> > > IKAYBWAI and PKB all in one. I respoded to most if not all of your
> > > questions. You are the one with the track record for only answering
> the
> > > questions you can answer with wanna-be-cute remarks.
> >
> > Cute remarks? Mearly a defense mechanism to your insults.
> >
>
> Why so defensive?
An answer to your ofttimes insulting tone. As if I need to answer again.
>
>
> > You want me to talk about my religion again? Bear in mind I have no
> > imperative to prove what I believe is true.
>
>
>
> Then admit that your assertions are philisophically bankrupt.
I will not. I hold beliefs, not assertions, and in my beliefs, I have
discovered knowledge that is reveiled only unto me. This knowledge is
intangible and cannot be held under a microscope or your computer scanner.
You are free to reject what you read of me, that however changes nothing of
my aspect.
In the
> study of philosophy it is the imperitave of the one doing the asserting
> to prove that what they assert is both true and accurate.
But in the study of philosophy, I'm more of a stoic than a cynic. I
understand that there is more to life than what meets the eye. But once
again, I have asserted nothing other than what I believe to give you an idea
of where I am coming from.
>
>
> What i believe is good enough
> > for me, as I have little concern towards your beliefs or unbeliefs.
>
>
> Then why do you bring it up all the time.
Pardon me? You stired the kettle this time.
And don't say I brought it
> up.
This time you did.
How would I even know what you thought about religion unless you
> voluteered it.
>
>
> > I also believe ALL religion has value and I hold no opinion as to
> their
> > value if it is not mine. I do not insult other faiths as I have seen
> > Christianity insulted here, however I was wrong to stand in it's
> defense
> > because my faith is incorruptable, just as God is incorruptable to
> the words
> > of men.
> >
> > Mark E. Sievert
> > >
>
> As long as you admit that it is FAITH and not truth then we agree.
Wouldn't have it any other way. My faith is my truth, your truth exists
only where you can find it.
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
> > In article <8Fhs4.5751$k66.499178@bgtnsc04-> > > > > > > message news:88k8pi$fn1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>At
> > > > > > > > > least some ignorants out there are willing to stick to
> > their
> > > > > > misguided
> > > > > > > > > belief systems out of a sense of integrity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At least he admits it..BWAAAAAAAAA!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry Hay. Carry on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > THE LION
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still awaiting his response, but let's face it. There's not
much
> > > > point.
> > > > > > The man (?) doesn't comprehend basic functions of logic and
then
> > > > digs
> > > > > > himself into deeper holes commenting on mine. He waffles
back
> > and
> > > > forth
> > > > > > on what he asserts. He wants to assert the Jesus myth as
literal
> > > > fact
> > > > > > and then wants OTHERS to prove a negative.
>
> Where did I ask anyone to prove Jesus did not exist? You are the one
> digging here.
>
It's kind of implicit in your posts, bucko.
> Critical thought is
> > not
> > > > this
> > > > > > guys strong point.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the Jesus myth appears where in this thread?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who said anything about THIS thread?
> > > >
> > > > > Didn't care to respond to my questions, so the logic dodge.
> > > >
> > > > IKAYBWAI and PKB all in one. I respoded to most if not all of
your
> > > > questions. You are the one with the track record for only
answering
> > the
> > > > questions you can answer with wanna-be-cute remarks.
> > >
> > > Cute remarks? Mearly a defense mechanism to your insults.
> > >
> >
> > Why so defensive?
>
> An answer to your ofttimes insulting tone. As if I need to answer
again.
>
You must be some kind of NetPsychic(R) (Thanx Bret) to be able to hear
my tone through text!
> >
> >
> > > You want me to talk about my religion again? Bear in mind I have
no
> > > imperative to prove what I believe is true.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then admit that your assertions are philisophically bankrupt.
>
> I will not. I hold beliefs, not assertions, and in my beliefs, I have
> discovered knowledge that is reveiled only unto me.
Now you're quibbling. If you're not asserting anything, then how did
your beliefs become so enmeshed in the substance of the newsgroup
postings here? You bring it up by defending Xianity, then say you don't
want to talk about it because you're not asserting anything. You can't
have your flesh of a zombie idol and eat it too.
This knowledge is
> intangible and cannot be held under a microscope or your computer
scanner.
> You are free to reject what you read of me, that however changes
nothing of
> my aspect.
>
That's a given MarkY, again, why so defensive? Does backing up
your "knowledge" and philisophical *assertions* really make you that
uncomfortable?
> In the
> > study of philosophy it is the imperitave of the one doing the
asserting
> > to prove that what they assert is both true and accurate.
>
> But in the study of philosophy, I'm more of a stoic than a cynic. I
> understand that there is more to life than what meets the eye. But
once
> again, I have asserted nothing other than what I believe to give you
an idea
> of where I am coming from.
But you want to end it there. I am willing to explain why I believe
what I do, but you cannot, even though you admittedly believe in more
than I do.
>
> >
> >
> > What i believe is good enough
> > > for me, as I have little concern towards your beliefs or
unbeliefs.
> >
> >
> > Then why do you bring it up all the time.
>
> Pardon me? You stired the kettle this time.
>
> And don't say I brought it
> > up.
>
> This time you did.
>
> How would I even know what you thought about religion unless you
> > voluteered it.
> >
> >
> > > I also believe ALL religion has value and I hold no opinion as to
> > their
> > > value if it is not mine. I do not insult other faiths as I have
seen
> > > Christianity insulted here, however I was wrong to stand in it's
> > defense
> > > because my faith is incorruptable, just as God is incorruptable to
> > the words
> > > of men.
> > >
> > > Mark E. Sievert
> > > >
> >
> > As long as you admit that it is FAITH and not truth then we agree.
>
> Wouldn't have it any other way. My faith is my truth, your truth
exists
> only where you can find it.
>
> >
Mark E Sievert
As I remember it, I mentioned it in a thread of postings with you, I then
mispelled Buddhist, which brought Gear in, followed by him hounding me
regarding Christianity, with_ him_ mentioning it about a couple dozen times.
Others too, after the start, it seemed everyone's favorite topic.
You bring it up by defending Xianity, then say you don't
> want to talk about it because you're not asserting anything. You can't
> have your flesh of a zombie idol and eat it too.
Sure I can, I'm also a father but you didn't show much interest in that
assertion. I'm a husband, no questioning on that part. Noble genealogy,
nothing from you. Knight, nada. You did not call me on any of that, so I
guess you accepted that at face value. Which brings one question. Why are
you only interested in this one small aspect of my life? Let's make that a
rhetorical question since I don't expect a straight answer.
>
>
> This knowledge is
> > intangible and cannot be held under a microscope or your computer
> scanner.
> > You are free to reject what you read of me, that however changes
> nothing of
> > my aspect.
> >
>
> That's a given MarkY, again, why so defensive? Does backing up
> your "knowledge" and philisophical *assertions* really make you that
> uncomfortable?
Huh? Are you asking me to prove that God exists? Really now.
>
>
> > In the
> > > study of philosophy it is the imperitave of the one doing the
> asserting
> > > to prove that what they assert is both true and accurate.
> >
> > But in the study of philosophy, I'm more of a stoic than a cynic. I
> > understand that there is more to life than what meets the eye. But
> once
> > again, I have asserted nothing other than what I believe to give you
> an idea
> > of where I am coming from.
>
>
> But you want to end it there. I am willing to explain why I believe
> what I do, but you cannot, even though you admittedly believe in more
> than I do.
But it will end here. I've recieved a large genealogical project involving
17th Century Netherlands, it is sure to keep me busy for a month or two. I
will un-subscribe to this news group for the time being because of disk
space considerations, as some of the Gen NG's are rather enormous.
Keep the home fires burning, I will be back when I get the time. In the
mean time, if you can work with out an audience, use my e-mail address if
you wish to pursue this thread further.
See you this spring,
Mark E. Sievert
>
>
<snip>
Father H. J. O'Blivion, Dkr. KOF
Oh, but of of course now you're going to dip out. PPBBBFFFT... Later
spankard