I've returned after a bit.....
DishRoom1
to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and that
Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in, had
lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood, Mike
Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
Apparently, not much, sadly.
Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this newsgroup
and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and smear
still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
As a man who loved cartoons and comics since being a boy, this fandom was a
cinch since it's almost like a Disney with a mature twist. At last I get to
meet and talk about my cartoon hobbies and entertainment to other adults
without feeling like I should be sent to the little kids' luch table.
The way there seems to be so many obessed Democrats in this fandom who are more
concerned about some guy in the White House than about some "furry=sex" trash
article, the magic seems to be gone all of the sudden.
I was behind you guys all the way, even though I had to tolerate any sexual
lifestyle you have, whatever your philosophy on life is, laughed at your dirty
jokes. Even as a Creation-believing Christian I even tolerated your religions,
or your secularisms with evolution beleifs. I defended you in your darkest
hours, when I held you up from the "Furry=sex" jouralists and TV shows, Shawn
Keller, the debates on porn and nude artwork. I also have the aspirations of
being a furry artist and writer inside the fandom. I also got to make a couple
of visits to Anthrocon.
And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other names
or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for "Furry
Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What about
it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some furry
zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other than
giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far. I
still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a manga
comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out soon
as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising limited
mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and the
all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
refriderator or something.
Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept me for
what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't feel
like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
John SHughart III
Caged_Horse
>>And weren't you [dishroom1] leaving? You posted a long diatribe about
how you were leaving because everyone hated you and the things in which
you believed. It's important to stand by your convictions.
I commented (October 24th):
>I'm reminded of that old Daddy Bush joke -- saying "NO NEW TAXES!" was a
slip of the tongue, you know; what he meant to say was: "No, NEW TAXES!"
Replace 'taxes' with 'posts', and you've got dishroom1.
Replace it with 'draft', and you've got Bush Junior.
Liar, liar, Limbaugh-loving pants on fire...
The Vargr
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>Even as a Creation-believing Christian
>...
>And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other names
>or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
---
GAYPLAN - You'd Be Straight Without It!
Mike and Carole
>
> Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for
> "Furry
> Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What
> about
> it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some
> furry
> zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other
> than
> giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
I will take a look this week (we're moving the storehouse from one facility
to another, just sent two comics off to the printer, doing my day job,
writing SHANDA, and working on an exciting proposal, but I WILL GET TO IT
THIS WEEK.)
So we gave you a free copy already? From your statement I can't decipher if
we ran it and gave you a copy or not.
As for "getting over Bush" we have a son that's draft age. Don't expect us
to get over it.
Mike
Dan Skunk
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107045240...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> I was behind you guys all the way, even though I had to tolerate any
sexual
> lifestyle you have, whatever your philosophy on life is, laughed at your
dirty
> jokes. Even as a Creation-believing Christian I even tolerated your
religions,
> or your secularisms with evolution beleifs. I defended you in your darkest
> hours, when I held you up from the "Furry=sex" jouralists and TV shows,
Shawn
> Keller, the debates on porn and nude artwork. I also have the aspirations
of
> being a furry artist and writer inside the fandom. I also got to make a
couple
> of visits to Anthrocon.
>
> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
names
> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
From what I've seen, furs are overwhelmly liberal.
Believing in personal freedom, tolerance, non-violence, preserving nature,
etc.
There's also very unrestricted attitudes about physical affection and sex; a
high number of homosexuals and bisexuals.
They also seem to be overwhelmly secular in their beliefs, sceptical about
religion, trusting scientific evidence over faith.
Since most christians and republicans seem to be against all of this stuff,
it's not surprising that you would recieve a lot of flack for supporting
them.
I think, what might be more constructive, would be if we would explain what
we believe in and why--rather than making blanket attacks. Understanding
each other is a good starting point to gaining acceptance.
Most likely, I think, we are all the same in our desires; just for one
reason or another, have chosen different ways to pursue them.
BR
> Believing in personal freedom, tolerance, non-violence, preserving
> nature, etc.
> Since most christians and republicans seem to be against all of this
> stuff, it's not surprising that you would recieve a lot of flack for
> supporting them.
I'll let the above two statements speak for themselves.
> I think, what might be more constructive, would be if we would explain
> what we believe in and why--rather than making blanket attacks.
> Understanding each other is a good starting point to gaining acceptance.
>
>
That implies a desire to listen. Pardon me if I'm "skeptical" on that
score.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
BR
> If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
If you believe Dave exists, you're a carmel cake.
Seriously Dave, lose the name-calling and the attitude.
mhirtes
dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote:
> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
> back
> to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and that
> Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in, had
> lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood,
> Mike
> Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
>
> Apparently, not much, sadly.
>
> Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this
> newsgroup
> and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
>
> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and smear
> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
that's being swept under the rug.
And the notion that Bush "won" because America has a majority of
bible-banging loons who won't be happy until Jerry Falwell is declared
America's official mullah and the country becomes one giant christian
version of North Korea? OH yeah, We Who Can Still Think are just just so
happy about the Great Assimilation that is to come.
>
> For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
If you supported Bush, than you have a lot more to be ashamed about than
being a furry fan.
>
> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
> names
> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
If the hobnailed boot fits........
The Red Vargr Of Courage
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>If you believe Dave exists, you're a carmel cake.
Oh good lord, not that old "you can't prove that you exist so you are
TEH DUMB HA HA HA" chestnut.
The Red Vargr Of Courage
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>> Believing in personal freedom, tolerance, non-violence, preserving
>> nature, etc.
>
>
>> Since most christians and republicans seem to be against all of this
>> stuff, it's not surprising that you would recieve a lot of flack for
>> supporting them.
>
>I'll let the above two statements speak for themselves.
Judged on the Example of Bush & pals, I would suggest that he is
right.
The Red Vargr Of Courage
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
>> names
>> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
>
>If the hobnailed boot fits........
or THE OILED BLACK LEATHER JACKBOOT OF OPRESSION!!!!!!!!
Dan Skunk
"mhirtes" <m...@spammersarescum.com> wrote in message
news:mh-88A2D7.08...@news.west.cox.net...
> 1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
> that's being swept under the rug.
They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a lot
of people a lot of money. :)
Don Sanders
@aol.com says...
return, and did not give any parting shots, or returning shots. I
for one don't value such things as coming and going as fodder for
personal attacks and such. I'm just another user of the newsgroup.
Welcome back, it is the least I can say.
> Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for "Furry
> Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What about
> it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some furry
> zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other than
> giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
>
> Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far. I
> still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a manga
> comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
> comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out soon
> as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising limited
> mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and the
> all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
>
> I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
> theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
> refriderator or something.
>
> Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept me for
> what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't feel
> like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
>
Maybe it would be a good idea to think of the fandom as not a place
to enter and leave, but a concept that can easily be put aside for
other things. Again, aside from that, welcome back.
(Note, I do make it a habit of welcoming back anyone, even if
sometimes the views they see do not go along with mind. In a genre
that tries to explore that which is beyond human, I'm at least trying
to be human... Can anyone else out there attest to that?)
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
<a85f33b3b118ee3f...@localhost.talkaboutpets.com>,
oaco...@hotmail.com says...
And you are keeping score???
Don't mind me, I'm just baffled that anyone would even want to keep a
score card on who comes and goes.
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
@yahoo.co.uk says...
Hmmm, lets play a quick little game here folks...
If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
you get?
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
brodr...@comcast.net says...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:54:25 +0000, The Vargr wrote:
>
> > If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
>
> If you believe Dave exists, you're a carmel cake.
>
> Seriously Dave, lose the name-calling and the attitude.
>
hard sometimes to follow who he is sometimes that I mostly have to
rely on the message headers to know if it is really him or not.
Of course that would label me as being intolerant to name changing
persons.
--
Don Sanders.
BR
> They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a
> lot of people a lot of money. :)
Gee, the cynicism seems to be deeper in this part of the stream. Guess
I'll have to put on my hip-waders, and a life vest. Never know when I
might step into a low point.
The Red Vargr Of Courage
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>Hmmm, lets play a quick little game here folks...
>
>If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
>you get?
A straw man.
you can belive in a relegion and not belive in the whole "god mad the
world in 7 days and evolution is not true" thing.
Richard dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, they have all comprehensivly
attacked and destryoed the foundations of creatonism.
Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.,
The Red Vargr Of Courage
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
I always keep the "d s a u n 1 2 a t yahoo . c o. u k" e-mail adress.
So that you know it's me.
Dan Skunk
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.07....@comcast.net...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:32:55 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
> > They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a
> > lot of people a lot of money. :)
>
> Gee, the cynicism seems to be deeper in this part of the stream. Guess
> I'll have to put on my hip-waders, and a life vest. Never know when I
> might step into a low point.
*chuckles*
Dan Skunk
"Don Sanders" <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in message
news:cmlnbq$1i1g$1...@velox.critter.net...
> (Note, I do make it a habit of welcoming back anyone, even if
> sometimes the views they see do not go along with mind. In a genre
> that tries to explore that which is beyond human, I'm at least trying
> to be human... Can anyone else out there attest to that?)
By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
which is human.
Spirou
^-^
______________________________________________________
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with massive diarrhea,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
BR
> By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
> which is human.
And how well are we exploring all things non-human?
Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
BR
> Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.
Well they say don't feed the troll, but...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1344237&tid=134&tid=14
Have at it Dave, and by the time you've read it all. We'll all have moved
to new digs, and left no forwarding address.
Juan F. Lara
I don't know that for sure.
The problem is that the people on this board who identify themselves as
"conservative" are overwhelmingly prone to flamer behavior. Insults, teasing,
hate-mongering. People like Skyfire, Antrhocoon, and RHJunior revel in that
like high school bullies. If there is a lot of hatred directed against them
they bring it onto themselves because of their offensive behavior. In contrast
I have a lot of respect for Rich Chandler and libertarian MMM. Those guys know
how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the level
of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers that stay
flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
Silver Seams
news:cmm85a$sg5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu:
> I don't know that for sure. The problem is that the people on this
> board who identify themselves as "conservative" are overwhelmingly
> prone to flamer behavior.
Yes. The important bit being "who identify themselves as." There are
plenty of conservatives who are also conservative about what they post,
including leaving politics for a political forum.
(There are liberals who're like that, too. Wish there were more, of
both.)
--
http://www.silverseams.com/ - Fursuits, plushies, and other stuff
Currently on Furbid: Black and silver wolf tail
http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?alluser&Silver_seams
Don Sanders
>
> > By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
> > which is human.
>
> And how well are we exploring all things non-human?
>
> Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
>
>
"They say as men, we lost our tails, when we evolved from little
snails. Are we not men? We are Devo! Are we not men? D.E.V.O!"
:)
--
Don Sanders.
Felyne32k
says...
around here long enough to know the history of who started heiling or
comrading first. What we have, though, is a sort of arms race of
flaming; there's so much emotional investment in painting the other side
as WRONG and STUPID (conservatives on liberals) or CORRUPT and EVIL
(liberals on conservatives) and avoiding the other guy's paintbrushes
that nobody's going to back down; if someone starts trying to be polite,
he'll just get steamrolled.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
Dan Skunk
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:cmm85a$sg5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
Hard to tell who started it. Sometimes it's a few liberals bitching about
right wing christian loonies with each other that get's someone offended.
Most of the furs I've met and talked to about the subject are liberal. This
is just what I see.
Dan Skunk
>
> > By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
> > which is human.
>
> And how well are we exploring all things non-human?
>
> Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
Umm... No... Animals. Their behaviour, comparing it to our own. Examining
the simularities and differences; determining what we share with them, and
what is different.
Wanderer
>
>> Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.
>
> Well they say don't feed the troll, but...
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1344237&tid=134&tid=14
>
<snip>
And here, in a nutshell, is why I don't get involved in that sort of
discourse. To quote:
"And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless:
You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An
argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through
evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is meant
to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to.
On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science
because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition,
unprovable belief.
When both sides are not even supposed to have common ground on which to
argue, the creationist/evolutionist debate is a non-sequitur on both sides.
"
All I'll say is that, in my family, we hold that Creation and evolution are
compatible.
Yours wolfishly,
The Christian,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Wanderer
>
> Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
>
Of course! Surely you've heard of "The Little White Cloud That Cried"?
Yours with a wolfish grin,
The punny,
BR
> Umm... No... Animals. Their behaviour, comparing it to our own.
> Examining the simularities and differences; determining what we share
> with them, and what is different.
Well we've stopped flinging feces. :)
BR
> Umm... No... Animals.
Oh I forgot. What about plants? If you prick a plant, does it not 'leak'?*
*Oh come on audiance. you get the reference. ;)
FuzzWolf
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107045240...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
back
> to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and
that
> Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in,
had
> lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood,
Mike
> Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
>
> Apparently, not much, sadly.
>
> Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this
newsgroup
> and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
>
> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and
smear
> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one
man....
Well, thanks for doing your part to keep the off topic political discussion
alive.
>
> For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
>
> As a man who loved cartoons and comics since being a boy, this fandom was
a
> cinch since it's almost like a Disney with a mature twist. At last I get
to
> meet and talk about my cartoon hobbies and entertainment to other adults
> without feeling like I should be sent to the little kids' luch table.
>
> The way there seems to be so many obessed Democrats in this fandom who are
more
> concerned about some guy in the White House than about some "furry=sex"
trash
> article, the magic seems to be gone all of the sudden.
The magic is gone because some people care more about the presidential
election than they do about trash tabloid articles? Your priorities are not
in order.
>
> Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far.
I
> still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a
manga
> comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
> comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out
soon
> as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising
limited
> mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and
the
> all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
This newsgroup isn't the sum total of all that's furry. Not being here
doesn't make you any more or less of a fur. It's good that you can still
enjoy your furry interests without having to be here.
>
> I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
> theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
> refriderator or something.
I think most would agree with me that no one here has just one interest or
thing they care about. Just because some people are concerned over politics
and world affairs doesn't mean they're not still enjoying the fandom. For a
lot of us, being a furry means the same as being a trekkie or a whovian.
Star Trek fans don't ignore who's running for president in the US in 2004 to
pay attention to who's leading the Federation in the 24th century. Why
should we be any different?
>
> Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept
me for
> what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't
feel
> like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
I formed a mailing list for furs who are also Doctor Who fans. Why not join
one of the furry Christians groups? I know there are a few out there on
Yahoo. I haven't heard of any yet, but I suspect there's probably a furry
Republicans group somewhere too and if not, start one up yourself! I
understand the pleasure of conversing with other furs who share interests
with me other than the fandom, you could do the same.
>
> John SHughart III
Fuzzy
Don Sanders
says...
</SillyPrincemoment>
Not trying to troll. I just need to release some repressed humor.
--
Don Sanders.
Wanderer
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:26:12 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
>> Umm... No... Animals.
>
> Oh I forgot. What about plants? If you prick a plant, does it not 'leak'?*
>
>
> *Oh come on audiance. you get the reference. ;)
>
Your reference to the Venetian merchant is appreciated.:>
Yours wolfishly,
The Shakespearean,
Philip M. Cohen
>
> "BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.11.07....@comcast.net...
> > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:16:56 +0000, The Red Vargr Of Courage wrote:
> >
> >> Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.
> >
> > Well they say don't feed the troll, but...
> >
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1344237&tid=134&tid=14
>
> <snip>
>
> And here, in a nutshell, is why I don't get involved in that sort of
> discourse. To quote:
>
> "And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless:
> You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An
> argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through
> evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
This is, however, entirely beside the point of the evolution-creationism
controversy in the US, in which the creationists (by which I mean
young-earth creationists and their ilk) are poaching on science's
territory. They claim that their myths, like Noah's Ark, are
scientifically supported, and should therefore have a place in public
schools alongside the truth. 'God created evolution' is anathema to the
creationists.
However, science proved beyond reasonable doubt, well before Darwin,
that views like the creationists' were scientific garbage. And the case
has only grown stronger since. There is no longer any reasonable doubt
that either (1) the universe is billions of years old and life on earth
evolved over that period, or (2) God created the universe in six days so
it looks to any reasonable informed person that it is billions of years
old and life on earth evolved over that period. Mighty few creationists
would buy either claim.
Am I saying that all young-earth creationists, and you can throw the
Intelligent Designists into that pile, are either unreasonable or
uninformed? No; there are a few honest ones who admit that if they
didn't take the Bible literally the evidence would force them to accept
evolution. But they're rare and uninfluential. The creationists I've met
have struck me as nice people, unlike the lying scum like Henry Morris
who lead the movement, but also unreasonable or uninformed. And that is
why the debate is not pointless: it is important to battle their
attempts to impose their ignorant dogma on the public schools.
--
Always carry a grapefruit, Treesong
Samantha Ann Patterson
DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Apparently, not much, sadly.
I am Moses, returned from on high! God commandeth thee
SIEG HEIL!
Samantha Ann Patterson
The Red Vargr Of Courage <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>BR <brodr...@comcast.net> shall never vanquished be until great
>Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>
>
>TEH DUMB HA HA HA" chestnut.
The solution, of course is to ask them to repeat that line in person and
then knock their teeth out and say, "If I don't exist, why are your
teeth knocked out?" Not terribly clever but it tends to work. :)
Samantha Ann Patterson
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
>>
>
>
>If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
>you get?
>
it you want and it still comes out basically the same.
The Wiggling Aardvark
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
I heard someone say it was too PC to ask someone use the same name, so
I thought I'd offer up a script:
#!/bin/sh
#Random net-news kook name generator
adj_file=~/News/adjectives; #File of adjectives.
noun_file=~/News/nouns; #File of nouns.
#Get length of each file.
adj_len=`cat $adj_file | wc -l`
noun_len=`cat $noun_file | wc -l`
#Create some fake randoms from date. (The - is used by head later)
adj_num=`date "+-%d%w%H%M%S"`
noun_num=`date "+-%j%I%S%M"`
#Create index number to use.
adj_idx=`expr $adj_num % $adj_len`
noun_idx=`expr $noun_num % $noun_len`
#Fetch words.
adj=`head $adj_idx $adj_file | tail -1`
noun=`head $noun_idx $noun_file | tail -1`
NAME="The $adj $noun"
export NAME
echo "Your new name is $NAME"
rn
The Wiggling Aardvark
Juan F. Lara <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't know that for sure.
> The problem is that the people on this board who identify themselves as
>"conservative" are overwhelmingly prone to flamer behavior. Insults, teasing,
>hate-mongering. People like Skyfire, Antrhocoon, and RHJunior revel in that
>like high school bullies. If there is a lot of hatred directed against them
>they bring it onto themselves because of their offensive behavior. In contrast
>I have a lot of respect for Rich Chandler and libertarian MMM. Those guys know
>how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the level
>of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers that stay
>flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
>
merely attempting to make yourself sound credible by turning on your own.
SIEG HEIL! for you.
Shame on you.
The Wiggling Aardvark
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
>
>"They say as men, we lost our tails, when we evolved from little
>snails. Are we not men? We are Devo! Are we not men? D.E.V.O!"
>
YOU UNSPEAKABLE BASTARD. I had JUST had that song STUCK IN MY HEAD
for TWO WEEKS and I'd JUST gotten rid of it. I hate you!!!!
The Wiggling Aardvark
Wanderer <wand...@ticnet.com> cut and pasted:
You deserve a big fat SIEG HEIL but it doesn't really suit.
How about an AMEN!
As usual, you lie to protect your faith. You know that 'Creationism' is
the skool of thot wherein the universe was magically made a few thousand
years ago. So you bend it to try to cling to your ridiculous pantheist
interpretation of christianity.
Of course, that's of little wonder. It's easy to disprove christianity if
you don't. See, since you can never prove a negative, the trick is that
when a christian says, "Prove my religion is a fantasy." all one really
needs say is "Prove buddism or hindu is a fantasy." to the christian. The
only way you can disprove a religion, of course is to admit that all religions
are mythology. If you must know and accept Jesus to be saved, why would
God create people who are born buddist, muslim, hindu, etc? Is he not
all powerful? Is their God more right than yours? Or maybe he's a racist
and only some people are born to parents to teach them about him and will
go to heaven and the rest are savages.
Of course, you're just barely bright enough to realize this but too full of
insecurity to accept the truth, so you have to build this complex and
fragile world-view to claim you believe in all religions as aspects of
your religion while being sure to try to keep it in your mind that yours
is the REAL religion. It must be quite uncomfortable to be you. You're
a closet agnostic.
The Wiggling Aardvark
BR <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:26:12 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
>> Umm... No... Animals. Their behaviour, comparing it to our own.
>> Examining the simularities and differences; determining what we share
>> with them, and what is different.
>
>Well we've stopped flinging feces. :)
>
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Even as a Creation-believing Christian
>>...
>>And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>>right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
>names
>>or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
>
>If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
>
But Jews -- well the Jews of Judaism -- share the same God and creation story
as well do. Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddism ahve their own gods and their
different creation stories that I no doubt are different from the evolution
tale, too.
In your definition, all these religous groups are "religous nutcakes", too.
Oopsie.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Dan Sanders wrote --
>>Hmmm, lets play a quick little game here folks...
>>
>>If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
>>you get?
>
>A straw man.
>
>you can belive in a relegion and not belive in the whole "god mad the
>world in 7 days and evolution is not true" thing.
>
>Richard dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, they have all comprehensivly
>attacked and destryoed the foundations of creatonism.
>
>Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.,
If "science" succeeded in destorying God and the Creation history, then why do
so many people believe in them still?
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Wander wrote --
BR wrote --
But there's a problem to the how "the world cannot be created in 6 days" doubt:
You pronounce this doubt as if you are thinking that God is a human or
something or there there are limits to his power. The Truth is, God is not
human at all and there is no limit to what he could do. If the Bible said that
he created the Universe all in six days, and I believe it without a doubt. God
is a high powerful spirit being who could always do the impossible.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and
>smear
>> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
(W Bush.)
>1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
>that's being swept under the rug.
And whose fault is this? UH it's "Bush's and Blair's" fault. Oh surely it's not
the fault of the insurgent