Cheats cheats cheats
Muggsly
to see if I could learn more about them to hopefully prevent myself from
getting screwed. I finally came across that has this program called
d#hac** (you know what I am talking about) but on this site they had
things I did not even now about. Or that they could even do these
things.
Some that I really need to wary of is this so called Trade Hack that lets
you hit the other persons trade accept so you get the item they are
showing you. I mean I was not trading before b/c of duped runes but now
forget it I am never going to trade. They did have a trade hack detect
module but it feels like the radar detector thing to me (where the same
company makes radar guns and detectors)
They have Aim hacks, shop bots(which I was aware of), magic chest hack,
and that crap hack Pickit etc etc etc .................
They even had a hack where you could have NPCs from town follow you
around and heal you ... I mean come one people wtf
The one saving grace was that some of these modules said patched by
blizz next to it.
Well I guess I am going to close the d2 doors soon. If I can't trade for
the things I want and there is no way to find all of them .... what is
the use of playing. I mean I have enough people online to fill my
friends list but they aren't enough to have most things in the game.
I am at a loss I never figured it was this bad and now that I know I wish
I didn't .......
--
Muggsly
Sc Us East Ladder
"Trying to imagine a world without hypothetical situations"
Particle Man
> Some that I really need to wary of is this so called Trade Hack that lets
> you hit the other persons trade accept so you get the item they are
> showing you. I mean I was not trading before b/c of duped runes but now
> forget it I am never going to trade.
Good man. :)
> They even had a hack where you could have NPCs from town follow you
> around and heal you ... I mean come one people wtf
OMG!!! That is friggin hilarious! It almost makes me want to install
it just to see that, that's great. :)
> Well I guess I am going to close the d2 doors soon. If I can't trade for
> the things I want and there is no way to find all of them .... what is
> the use of playing.
Make a good MFer, do some runs and if you find REALLY good items you can
base a character around them, or simply supply your other existing
chars. That's what I usually do. Although MF runs in 1.10 aren't as
easy as before.
Muggsly
news:l3ZMb.47365$xy6.116883@attbi_s02:
> Muggsly wrote:
>>
> Make a good MFer, do some runs and if you find REALLY good items you
> can base a character around them, or simply supply your other existing
> chars. That's what I usually do. Although MF runs in 1.10 aren't as
> easy as before.
I have 2 good mfers for runs but the monotony get sometimes become
unbearable. I have a blizz/meteor sorc that I use for meph and I have
actually become quite adept teleporting so fast that I can't even see
myself. She has probably done hundreds of meph runs.
I have a lvl86 skellimancer that runs baal with a friend of mine who is a
pure Frozen orb sorc and we can do baal in no time.
But even with those 2 chars I have yet to see alot of what the game has
Particle Man
> I have 2 good mfers for runs but the monotony get sometimes become
> unbearable. I have a blizz/meteor sorc that I use for meph and I have
> actually become quite adept teleporting so fast that I can't even see
> myself. She has probably done hundreds of meph runs.
I've done tens of thousands. :) Not that you need to do that many.
> I have a lvl86 skellimancer that runs baal with a friend of mine who is a
> pure Frozen orb sorc and we can do baal in no time.
>
> But even with those 2 chars I have yet to see alot of what the game has
> ....
Well, there's something to be said for items being hard to get. Problem
is all the duping makes it seem like they are far more common than they
actually are, and it depresses you when you can't find them alone.
Right now I'm making a Skellimancer on USEast SCL to do Baal runs,
supposedly it's fast. I have a Hammerdin but he's not really the
greatest runner for some reason...
Zamboni
"Particle Man" <partic...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wr_Mb.45183$nt4.78763@attbi_s51...
he's able to do it fast, it's that he's able to survive the run,
consistently, in full MF gear.
--
Zamboni
Particle Man
> "Skellimancer" and "fast" do not belong in the same sentence. It's not that
> he's able to do it fast, it's that he's able to survive the run,
> consistently, in full MF gear.
> --
> Zamboni
There are those who say otherwise. One of the keys is giving your
mancer a 6-socketed phase blade, EthEthEthEthShaelShael, along with
crushing blow items, to knock Hell Baal down really fast. So, I'm
trying it.
Zamboni
Crushomancers have been around for ages. And every Crushing Blow item is one
less Magic Find item. Killing Baal is the easy part - there's still the
journey from the Waypoint to the Chamber (but everyone has Enigmas now, so
even that's irrelevant now).
--
Zamboni
Particle Man
> There are those who say the Earth is flat. This is not a new tactic -
> Crushomancers have been around for ages. And every Crushing Blow item is one
> less Magic Find item. Killing Baal is the easy part - there's still the
> journey from the Waypoint to the Chamber (but everyone has Enigmas now, so
> even that's irrelevant now).
No not everyone, just the people that trade for duped items. Which if
they do, I don't see why they need to do Baal runs in the first place,
certainly not for items at least.
So go on believing that 'it won't work', and while you do that, I'll
actually find and put to use the information to make it work, and do my
fast baal runs.
Bingain
other computer was holding a game where the SOJ counter was rolling, I
thought it would be neat to have one of this cool weapon. So I approached
him and he asked for an UM. So this is what I said:
"It's a very nice thingie, but is not a must. I can do without it."
I'd rather keep my Um. You never know when you need it badly. You can be a
very effective sorc without HOTO and Enigma/Chain. They may help boost your
ego though.
Bing
"Muggsly" <N...@no.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946F9EA...@207.69.154.206...
Zamboni
time, Crushing Blow and all, we just haven't passed it off as a momentous
discovery. It's old news, get over it. "There are those that say..." LOL..
--
Zamboni
Saber
people here are pretty trustworthy so you shouldnt feel apprehensive about
trading with agd2ers.
and, while having the best items in the game is nice, it does wear down
after a while. ifi were to play again, i wouldnt go for the best, because
that ruins some of the challenge of the game.
--
Saber
"Muggsly" <N...@no.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946F9EA...@207.69.154.206...
Muggsly
news:6ZqdnZZsNYP...@giganews.com:
> what i did when i played was mainly trade with the group i played
> with. the people here are pretty trustworthy so you shouldnt feel
> apprehensive about trading with agd2ers.
> and, while having the best items in the game is nice, it does wear
> down after a while. ifi were to play again, i wouldnt go for the
> best, because that ruins some of the challenge of the game.
>
I know that you guys are out there but it seems that most agd2 folks are on
US west and seem to play hc .. I am on east and play SC-L. I am part of a
pretty good clan that the admin is a agd2er although not to active anymore.
And I mostly just try and trade within the clan but unfortunately, for me
at least, I am one of the top 2 mfers in the clan. The other is the guy I
MF with ... So unless I find it no one usually has one.
Just waiting for d3 or some other non subscribtion based non MMORPG to come
along ....
Particle Man
> I know that you guys are out there but it seems that most agd2 folks are on
> US west and seem to play hc .. I am on east and play SC-L. I am part of a
> pretty good clan that the admin is a agd2er although not to active anymore.
Is your clan legit? Have a webpage? I play east SCL also.
HCwest Pete Fella
If the clan is Stevies then no it's not legit, though some of the players
may be, he however isn't ;-) (Stevies clan is the only one i remember being
mentioned on SC ladder Useast hence the comment)
--
Pete
"Monty this seems strange to me.
The movies had that movie thing,
but nonsense has a welcome ring
and heroes don't come easy." - M. Stipe
Muggsly
news:qTjNb.15885$SS2.17...@news-text.cableinet.net:
> Particle Man wrote:
>> Muggsly wrote:
>>
>>> I know that you guys are out there but it seems that most agd2 folks
>>> are on US west and seem to play hc .. I am on east and play SC-L. I
>>> am part of a pretty good clan that the admin is a agd2er although
>>> not to active anymore.
>>
>> Is your clan legit? Have a webpage? I play east SCL also.
>
> If the clan is Stevies then no it's not legit, though some of the
> players may be, he however isn't ;-) (Stevies clan is the only one i
> remember being mentioned on SC ladder Useast hence the comment)
>
Yes he does condone the use of MH but that is his buisness. I personally
don't use it b/c I don't think it is worth $50 bucks ($20 for mh and $30
to get another copy of LOD if they ban me) and I like to have a bit of a
challenge ... but the couple guys within the clan that I choose to play
with are pretty down to earth, share drops, and enjoy the game. Which is
what I was looking for when I joined. I don't know anybody local to me
that I can talk to about LOD and game with, and I don't like to play solo
otherwise I would just play sp, so it worked out for me in the long run.
Plus all the other clans that I researched where nothing but a bunch of
script kiddies.
Particle Man
> If the clan is Stevies then no it's not legit, though some of the players
> may be, he however isn't ;-) (Stevies clan is the only one i remember being
> mentioned on SC ladder Useast hence the comment)
With the risk of starting another useless freaking flame thread, I will
ask: What's the point of making a non-legit clan? Aren't there enough
non-legits on bnet available at all times day or night?
Jim Earnest
This my first post but have followed thi thread the past couple of days.
Suggest you take a look at www.pofl.org an actually legit guild. Active e/w
sc and hc ladder.
Jimnews:2xmNb.54935$5V2.67533@attbi_s53...
David Carson
> With the risk of starting another useless freaking flame thread, I will
> ask: What's the point of making a non-legit clan? Aren't there enough
> non-legits on bnet available at all times day or night?
The same reason anyone forms a clan - to get some crappy acronym to
append to your character's name, of course!
Cheers!
David...
Saber
there better still be people on east, when i played, i never played alone.
sometimes there would be too many to fit in a game so we would make 2 games.
ah, those were the days...
you can try the player matchup thing on my site
(www.saber-online.com) and /w the people on that to play with people too.
--
Saber
"Muggsly" <N...@no.com> wrote in message
news:Xns947089E...@207.69.154.204...
David H
"Muggsly" <n...@one.com> wrote in message
> Yes he does condone the use of MH but that is his buisness.
Having sex in his home is also his business(*). However, the rules change
when you enter into a public arena.
David
(*) Unless you are gay and american, in which case you might not be allowed
to have sex in your home.
Saber
in public??? whats up with that? if i want to have sex, i should be able
to.
--
Saber
"David H" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:5eNOb.2732$U77.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Brian Brunner
>> wait a second. so, i shouldnt be having phone sex,
You don't want phone sex, you want girl sex.
Girl sex is immensely pleasure able but causes cute babies and enormous
bills. Phone sex is painful going in *and* out, especially if the phone
is wired for 24 volts. It causes answering machines and computer
viruses.
Maybe on second thought you want the phone sex.
--
USEast SC: Claransa, Mudstomper.
USEast HC: Rockstomper
USWest SC: Mudstomper
USEast HC Ladder: Dirtstomper
Europe HC Ladder: Dirtstomper
Saber
negative outcomes?
--
Saber
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
news:sgtr009u9k21fk9ad...@4ax.com...
Brian Brunner
>> er.... what type of sex would have the least amount (or least intensive)
>> negative outcomes?
Abstinence.
By the way, if you both top-post *and* have a "-- " sig file, replaying
to your post *always* throws away the text being replied to (except for
yours). Recommend ditching the "-- " or using a bottom-posting style so
the conversation is preserved.
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>
> >> er.... what type of sex would have the least amount (or least
intensive)
> >> negative outcomes?
>
> Abstinence.
Unless you have been brainwashed by the Bushites, abstinence is not really a
type of sexual behavior. It also has many negative outcomes, including
decreased enjoyment in life and possibly increased incidence of prostate
cancer.
David
go_d2
> you hit the other persons trade accept so you get the item they are
> showing you.
u should not wary about this. i heard that to make this work, the
target user (the victim) must have installed some kind of trojan or
hack software on his machine. i.e. you download and installed a MH or
some sort, along comes this little hack program on your pc, which
allows the other trader to control your trade button. If u don't
download and install suspicious software, u are totaly safe.
> Well I guess I am going to close the d2 doors soon. If I can't trade for
> the things I want and there is no way to find all of them .... what is
> the use of playing. I mean I have enough people online to fill my
do NOT quit d2 brother. we need u here.
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>> >
>> > >> er.... what type of sex would have the least amount (or least
>> > >> intensive) negative outcomes?
>> >
>> > Abstinence.
>>
>> Unless you have been brainwashed by the Bushites, abstinence is not really a
>> type of sexual behavior.
Abstinence is a sexual behavior like zero is a number.
Get over your bush-bash fixation, please. It clouds your capacity to
reason.
>> It also has many negative outcomes, including
>> decreased enjoyment in life and possibly increased incidence of prostate
>> cancer.
Compare please
1: the decrease in enjoyment and increase in cancer risk from abstinence
as you assert to
2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
infections.
Saber
--
Saber
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
news:1sa310l8qgp2ikg5s...@4ax.com...
Saber
and it also automatically top posts.
if you know of any patches or hacks for OE to make it bottom post, ill
install them. i heard of one, but forget the name of it.
--
Saber
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
news:ke1210lg91oqscauq...@4ax.com...
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
Fasting I guess is also a type of eating behavior then, but not one I would
condone.
> 2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
> infections.
If we were living 300 years ago or so then I would agree with you: children
are an unfortunate side-effect of sexual activity. Luckily, in the
intervening time, we have come up with a number of wonderful inventions:
(1) Condoms
(2) Birth Control Pills
(3) Morning after pills
(4) Safe Abortions
Now, as a species, we can all have enjoyable sexual activity, and nobody
will be forced to have kids against their will.
Unless you live in the third world, Saudi Arabia, Ireland or the States of
course.
David
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote in message
>>
>> > Abstinence is a sexual behavior like zero is a number.
>>
>> Fasting I guess is also a type of eating behavior then, but not one I would
>> condone.
Illogical non-sequiteur (as if there are *logical* ones). One does not
die from life-long abstinence, nor from abstinence until marriage, as
one will from life-long fasting, or fasting until marriage.
>> > 2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
>> > infections.
>>
>> If we were living 300 years ago or so then I would agree with you: children
>> are an unfortunate side-effect of sexual activity. Luckily, in the
>> intervening time, we have come up with a number of wonderful inventions:
all of which have imperfect performance records. Employing them all
gives you a reduced chance of successful reproduction, but do not change
the reproductive nature of the event engaged in.
You forgot to address the lethal virus question. Abstinence won't kill
him, AIDS will.
Brian Brunner
>> well, the cancer and the lethal virus.. both can kill ya...
Now check your odds: dying from testicular cancer because you didn't
fornicate, and dying of AIDS because you did.
Abstinence is distinctly safer.
Brian Brunner
>> well, im using OE,and it automatically puts the -- there to indicate a sig.
>> and it also automatically top posts.
>> if you know of any patches or hacks for OE to make it bottom post, ill
>> install them. i heard of one, but forget the name of it.
I'll leave this to OE experts. I run Agent.
ring
> Abstinence is distinctly safer
Wow! During the past couple days you post 5 or 6 messages in a video game
newsgroup singing the praises of abstinence... You must have one hell of a
social life, Brian.
Living in a plastic bubble, never eating or touching anything that hasn't
been chemically sterilized, and never leaving the house is much safer too.
Sex is not a behavior that can be easily stopped by just telling people it's
dangerous. It's a self-rewarding behavior; doing it feels good, and is its
own reward. There are no immediate consequences, no matter how dire the
others may be. People don't smoke because they love getting lung cancer and
heart disease and hacking like an old woman in the morning, people smoke
because it's pleasurable.
Despite all this, the only thing worse than someone who beats people over
the head with abstinence is a rabid non-smoker. Funny how that works; I'd
rather be locked in a room with a dozen chain-smoking sex maniacs than one
preaching, self-righteous primate.
--
It is insufficient to protect | Randy
ourselves with laws; we need | URL: www.geocities.com/ring_eldest/
to protect ourselves with | Email: ring_eld...@hotmail.com
mathematics. -Bruce Schneier | Talk: 901.XXX.XXXX
Mark Morrison
wrote:
Which is why you should masturbate.
Abtain by all means, but don't forget to whack off !
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Saber
paste every post i make.. well, that would get tedious. i dont think you
would want to do that with all your posts either.
--
Saber
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
news:047510ho008jp23t9...@4ax.com...
Saber
making sure your partner is tested. if you go about hookin up with everyone
you see... yea thats not safe. but if you have sex with someone you care
about, there is nothin wrong with that.
abstinence is safer, but its also not the only thing you can do (or not do).
--
Saber
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
news:017510pugjgqt3ht3...@4ax.com...
Brian Brunner
>> but, there are protective measures.
All of which have in common that your chance of catastrophe goes down,
but remains significantly far above zero. Russian roulette is one
bullet is a 6 chamber handgun; 18% chance of blowing your brains out.
If you used a 600 chamber handgun, would you then say the risk was too
small to worry about?
There are risks in all things we do. Some risks are avoidable. Choose
your risks wisely.
>> If you have sex with someone you care
>> about, there is nothin wrong with that.
This is not in the same thread: lethal physical risk versus ethics or
morality.
>> abstinence is safer
This is the point I made!
>> > >> well, the cancer and the lethal virus.. both can kill ya...
>> >
>> > Now check your odds: dying from testicular cancer because you didn't
>> > fornicate, and dying of AIDS because you did.
>> >
>> > Abstinence is distinctly safer.
Choose your risks wisely.
Brian Brunner
>> aight. i understand where you are comin from with that, but to copy and
>> paste every post i make.. well, that would get tedious. i dont think you
>> would want to do that with all your posts either.
It's what I have to do, when answering yours.
I don't know the technical solution (I don't know OE).
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> but remains significantly far above zero. Russian roulette is one
> bullet is a 6 chamber handgun; 18% chance of blowing your brains out.
There are minimal benefits to playing Russian roulette, and your risks are
high.
There are many benefits to sexual activity, and the odds of all birth
control and abortive procedures failing is very very small. Your analogy
barely holds any water at all I'm afraid.
David
Basajaun
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, "David H" wrote:
>
> >> "Brian Brunner" wrote in message
> >>
> >> > Abstinence is a sexual behavior like zero is a number.
> >>
> >> Fasting I guess is also a type of eating behavior then, but not one I would
> >> condone.
>
> Illogical non-sequiteur (as if there are *logical* ones). One does not
> die from life-long abstinence,
Strictly speaking, life-long <whatever> kills, as you are dead as a
consequence.
> nor from abstinence until marriage, as
> one will from life-long fasting, or fasting until marriage.
Sexual abstinence doesn't make one die, but it sure makes one _wish_
he/she would die! ;^)
Seriously, we can live w/o sex, as we can live w/o Shakespeare,
Michaelangelo (not the ninja turtle), Velazquez, Neruda, Mozart, Bach,
Michael Jackson, Homer (not Simpson, well, Homer Simpson too), Bogart,
Chaplin or Denzel Washington. What the heck!, we could even live w/o
handguns, nuclear weapons, 1/5 litre/km cars... or w/o McDonald's...
scary, uh?. Oh, well, and getting rid of the four items in the second
list would make our lives longer and healthier, too.
> >> > 2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
> >> > infections.
Wrong. The countries where the overpopulation (and "lethal viral
infections") is being fought by abstinence (short of other means), say
far East, middle Africa, or south America, are by far the ones most
affected by undesired children and viral epidemics.
Countries with those artificial means of sexual protection with
"imperfect performance records" (say, condoms), and people fucking all
day long like monkeys in heat, for example, Europe (Amsterdan, the
Babylon of the XX century), are in dire need of MORE children to be
able to mantain the population. The average child rate per parental
couple is well below 2 in Spain, go figure.
> >> If we were living 300 years ago or so then I would agree with you: children
> >> are an unfortunate side-effect of sexual activity. Luckily, in the
> >> intervening time, we have come up with a number of wonderful inventions:
>
> all of which have imperfect performance records. Employing them all
> gives you a reduced chance of successful reproduction, but do not change
> the reproductive nature of the event engaged in.
>
> You forgot to address the lethal virus question. Abstinence won't kill
> him, AIDS will.
Living kills, get over it. WHATEVER you do can, potentially, kill you.
You should, of course, try to avoid the negative consequences of your
acts... but you shouldn't be force to quit doing something you like to
do unless: a) it hurts others, b) there is no way of avoiding
unacceptable consequences.
So rape is wrong, because it hurts the victim, no doubt. And sex w/o
preventive means (e.g. condoms and/or pills), if needed, is also to be
avoided, if getting AIDS is not an acceptable option (for me, it is
not). But having safe sex with a willing partner is a whole different
story.
Basajaun
Babe Bridou
> him, AIDS will.
Agreed. "Choose wisely", you said.
On the one side I have: sexual intensity, sexual self-esteem, sexual
confidence, sharing more than thoughts with someone you deeply love,
finding out how our bodies could work together to achieve orgasmic
magnificence, while knowing whatever risks are bound to sexual
activity...
On the other side I have respectively: lack thereof, lack thereof,
lack thereof, lack thereof, lack thereof, lack thereof, while knowing
I can die from smoking too many cigarettes a day, or just from
crossing the street... I can even get AIDS while donating my blood.
Just my two cents.
I choose condoms and contraceptives, because of all the "lack
thereof"s which can kill me, too, as swiftly as a razorblade. And I'm
sure not all people are as strongwilled as you can be, for I am not.
Abstinence can prevent AIDS... but it can also imply sexual
frustrations which in turn can lead weak people to sexual violence,
rape, pedophilia and the like.
Choose wisely. We fight for the same goal: destroying AIDS.
BB
Zamboni
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> All of which have in common that your chance of catastrophe goes down,
> but remains significantly far above zero. Russian roulette is one
> bullet is a 6 chamber handgun; 18% chance of blowing your brains out.
>
One outta six? Too dangerous for me. Much better odds with one outta
fifteen.
(and for those who didn't get it the first time:)
Chamber? Dang cowboyz. Youse guyz got sometin against clips?
--
Zamboni
Brian Brunner
>> Brian Brunner <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message news:<hk65105etv70j4kdv...@4ax.com>...
>> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, "David H" wrote:
>> >
>> > >> "Brian Brunner" wrote in message
>> > >>
>> > >> > Abstinence is a sexual behavior like zero is a number.
>> > >>
>> > >> Fasting I guess is also a type of eating behavior then, but not one I would
>> > >> condone.
>> >
>> > Illogical non-sequiteur (as if there are *logical* ones). One does not
>> > die from life-long abstinence,
>>
>> Strictly speaking, life-long <whatever> kills, as you are dead as a
>> consequence.
Negative.
'Dying from' indicates a causal relationship, not a casual coincidence.
We don't die from life-long breathing, nor from abstinence.
>> > nor from abstinence until marriage, as
>> > one will from life-long fasting, or fasting until marriage.
>>
>> Sexual abstinence doesn't make one die, but it sure makes one _wish_
>> he/she would die! ;^)
Again, negative.
Just as the first three months of kicking a smoking habit are hell, so
are the first two years of abstinence.
From then on you feel good to be that clean inside.
>> > >> > 2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
>> > >> > infections.
>>
>> Wrong. The countries where the overpopulation (and "lethal viral
>> infections") is being fought by abstinence (short of other means), say
>> far East, middle Africa, or south America, are by far the ones most
>> affected by undesired children and viral epidemics.
'Wrong' yourself. You're good at mixing unrelated factors and unrelated
results. You fornicating increase the chance of you contracting a lethal
virus. The fact that you can increase your chance by fornicating in
zimbabwe where few people have indoor plumbing does not suggest that
avoiding indoor plumbing increases the chance of contracting a lethal
virus. It's the fornicating that's the primary transmissal behavior.
Saber
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>
> >> but, there are protective measures.
>
> All of which have in common that your chance of catastrophe goes down,
> but remains significantly far above zero. Russian roulette is one
> bullet is a 6 chamber handgun; 18% chance of blowing your brains out.
arent condoms supposed to work 99.9% of the time? that means if you have
sex 1000 time, only one time it would fail.
and russian roulette? um... what exactly do you gain from that? not
blowing your brains (or lack there of if you play that) out? um... no
thanks. plus, 83.4% chance of success is a lot different from 99.9% (its
16.6% with the 6 chamber gun according to my calculator).
>
> If you used a 600 chamber handgun, would you then say the risk was too
> small to worry about?
1 outta 600 and one outta 1000 is a pretty big change....
>
> There are risks in all things we do. Some risks are avoidable. Choose
> your risks wisely.
your proposed risks are to be frank, utterly stupid act out. having sex is
not.
>
> >> If you have sex with someone you care
> >> about, there is nothin wrong with that.
>
> This is not in the same thread: lethal physical risk versus ethics or
> morality.
your are advocating abstinence, so, sex is the thread. especially when
loving someone will likely reduce the risk of STDs, because you both will
get tested before engaging in sexual activities.
>
> >> abstinence is safer
>
> This is the point I made!
but its not the only option, and having sex isnt a bad option. just be
responsible with sex.
>
> >> > >> well, the cancer and the lethal virus.. both can kill ya...
> >> >
> >> > Now check your odds: dying from testicular cancer because you didn't
> >> > fornicate, and dying of AIDS because you did.
> >> >
> >> > Abstinence is distinctly safer.
>
> Choose your risks wisely.
but dont live in a bubble. living life is full of risks, and if you avoid
all of them, you are not goin to have a fun life. heres an analogy:
skydiving is dangerous. you jump out of an airplane, and hope you packed
your parachute correctly and that it doesnt fail. but people still do it.
guns are also dangerous. is not used correctly, they are very lethal. but
people own them, and use them. iirc, you own guns and taught your children
how to use them (could be mistakin you for someone else, but i dont think
so..). there are risks with having guns in the same house as kids (relative
term, i think you said teenager). there are risks giving them the guns and
letting them use 'em. what if it backfires? what if somethin goes wrong?
what if it goes ff when cleaning it? these are all big risks. but people
still use them. why? because there are ways to minimize the risks and they
feel the activity is worth the risk.
is HIV a potential risk? yea, to say otherwise would be either ignorance or
lying. is it a big risk? not is you are careful.
--
Saber
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> are the first two years of abstinence.
>
> From then on you feel good to be that clean inside.
Egad, what kind of sexual activity are you involved in? Unless you are
some psycho catholic, why on earth would sex make you feel dirty?
>You fornicating increase the chance of you contracting a lethal
> virus.
Your living in the city increases the chance of getting lung cancer. Your
living in China *really* increases your chance of contracting a lethal
virus.
>It's the fornicating that's the primary transmissal behavior.
Depends on the virus you're talking about, right?
David
David H
"Saber" <sab...@IEATSPAMMERSoptonline.net> wrote in message
>heres an analogy:
> skydiving is dangerous. you jump out of an airplane, and hope you packed
> your parachute correctly and that it doesnt fail.
A small point of interest: Driving 100km on the highway entails a greater
risk of death than skydiving.
Back to your regularly scheduled Brian the RetroCatholic hour.
>there are risks with having guns in the same house as kids
Minor quibble. When you have sex, the only person you are risking is
yourself (and perhaps your partner, though presumably you haven't been
infected yet which is why the activity is "risky" for you). When you have a
gun in your house, you are risking the life of people around you, and its
not your decision to make.
David
Basajaun
> On 27 Jan 2004 03:23:20 -0800, poas...@yahoo.com (Basajaun) wrote:
[snip]
> >> > Illogical non-sequiteur (as if there are *logical* ones). One does not
> >> > die from life-long abstinence,
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking, life-long <whatever> kills, as you are dead as a
> >> consequence.
>
> Negative.
>
> 'Dying from' indicates a causal relationship, not a casual coincidence.
> We don't die from life-long breathing, nor from abstinence.
It was clearly a joke. And, anyway, yes, you die as a consequence of
life-long breathing. Not because of breathing, but because of doing it
all your life. It's not only a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (that is,
"it happens after that, then it happens because of that"), as it
seems. You can't die after NOT breathing all your life, and you DO die
after breathing all your life... so... :^)
Similarly, if you practice abstinence ALL your life, you WILL die
after that, by definition (otherwise it wasn't all your life). If you
quit that (bad) habit and have sex, then die, you didn't die of
life-long abstinence, but you didn't practice it either. Practicing
something "life-long" ensures death after that, and not practising it
ensures NOT dying after that. That's something I'd call "cause and
effect".
But nevermind, it was something we'd call in Spain "mental
masturbation"... just twisting the ideas for the sake of it.
> >> > nor from abstinence until marriage, as
> >> > one will from life-long fasting, or fasting until marriage.
> >>
> >> Sexual abstinence doesn't make one die, but it sure makes one _wish_
> >> he/she would die! ;^)
>
> Again, negative.
>
> Just as the first three months of kicking a smoking habit are hell, so
> are the first two years of abstinence.
>
> From then on you feel good to be that clean inside.
May God hear you, because I am begining my third year of (unwanted)
abstinence and it's not getting any better. I can't say I'm crazy for
having sex... but I certainly miss it. I don't think I need it the way
an ex-alcoholic "needs" a drink, but the way Penelope missed Ulises,
or a caged bird misses the open skies.
Does it make me an addict?. I sure can live w/o it, but something is
missing in my life, as something is missing in the life of someone who
studied to be aeronautical engineer and works at McDonalds (no offense
ment to them).
> >> > >> > 2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
> >> > >> > infections.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The countries where the overpopulation (and "lethal viral
> >> infections") is being fought by abstinence (short of other means), say
> >> far East, middle Africa, or south America, are by far the ones most
> >> affected by undesired children and viral epidemics.
>
> 'Wrong' yourself. You're good at mixing unrelated factors and unrelated
> results.
Are they really unrelated?. So if everyone in the third world could
afford, or even find, a condom, you think that their sex-related
problems would not be alleviated?. I can't tell about abstinence,
because there is no place in the world where undesired childeren or
AIDS are taken care of that way (except maybe your home... and mine,
now that I think of it :^( ), but I can tell about information,
freedom and easy access to contraceptive and barrier methods, for in
Spain (and the rest of Europe, and north America, and every "first
world" country) they are being used quite successfully.
> You fornicating increase the chance of you contracting a lethal
> virus. The fact that you can increase your chance by fornicating in
> zimbabwe where few people have indoor plumbing does not suggest that
> avoiding indoor plumbing increases the chance of contracting a lethal
> virus. It's the fornicating that's the primary transmissal behavior.
No. It's the lack of information and barrier methods, such as condoms.
What makes me and an the average zimbabwean Joe different is that I do
know how to use a condom (and I can afford more of them than I find
willing women), and he doesn't. Thus, my chances of getting AIDS are
ridiculous compared to his, "fornicating" the very same. I could well
have sex with many more women than him, even with my pathetic sexual
life, and still he'd be more likely to die of a sexually transmited
disease. He is more likely to die in many other ways, such as
starvation or making war, than I am, but these are a different story.
Food prevents starvation, condoms prevent AIDS.
Noone says that a condom is more effective than abstinence. Total
abstinence prevents AIDS quite nicely, as negative to donate blood
does. People might die because you didn't share your blood with them,
but hey, you are safe from AIDS!
Not watching films at all prevents from watching "Daredevil" or
"Underworld" (I still shudder, they were so bad!), but also makes you
not enjoy "Ben Hur", "Casablanca", "The Lord of the Rings" or "The son
of the bride"...
Not reading books prevents you waste your time with Joseph Conrad
(man, I hate "Heart of Darkness" and "The secret agent"), Robert
Ludhlum, or William Golding (anyone _really_ likes "The lord of the
flies"?), but also negates the deep lore of the Greek tragedies, the
fun of Verne, Salgari or Asimov, the ellegance and wide vocabulary of
Shakespeare, Cervantes or Delibes, or the deep thoughts any book by
Terry Pratchett provides :^)
As "Mouse" (or whatever his name was in the original) said in
"Matrix", "negating our impulses is negating what makes us human". Art
and fun-oriented sex are much alike. We can live w/o them, but they
make us human, and make our souls and senses richer.
Basajaun
buck naked
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> On 27 Jan 2004 03:23:20 -0800, poas...@yahoo.com (Basajaun) wrote:
>
> Again, negative.
>
> Just as the first three months of kicking a smoking habit are hell, so
> are the first two years of abstinence.
>
> From then on you feel good to be that clean inside.
That's probably the funniest line I've read in QUITE sometime. You believe
that 'sex is dirty'. Are you five? Sex is NOT dirty, unless done right.
Seriously though, that line sounds like sour grapes. Quite honestly I'd
HATE to go through two years of abstinence. Sex is not a habit like
smoking, sex is a drive by the body and is a NATURAL part of life.
You could counter with 'casual sex isn't natural' and I'd disagree with you,
but we're not talking about a sexual life style, just that a two year lack
of sex for someone in their 20/30's isn't healthy.
>
> >> > >> > 2: the effect of undesired children, or undesired lethal viral
> >> > >> > infections.
> >>
> >> Wrong. The countries where the overpopulation (and "lethal viral
> >> infections") is being fought by abstinence (short of other means), say
> >> far East, middle Africa, or south America, are by far the ones most
> >> affected by undesired children and viral epidemics.
>
> 'Wrong' yourself. You're good at mixing unrelated factors and unrelated
> results. You fornicating increase the chance of you contracting a lethal
> virus. The fact that you can increase your chance by fornicating in
> zimbabwe where few people have indoor plumbing does not suggest that
> avoiding indoor plumbing increases the chance of contracting a lethal
> virus. It's the fornicating that's the primary transmissal behavior.
>
Actually, Discover magazine has an interesting article about AIDS. Turns
out the biggest risk is in countries where people have multiple LONG TERM
partners. Countries where people have multiple short term partners aren't
much more at risk than countries where a person has a single long term
partner. What's 'much more'? Depends on if you're talking about it or
catching it.
David H
"Basajaun" <poas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Not watching films at all prevents from watching "Daredevil" or
> "Underworld" (I still shudder, they were so bad!), but also makes you
> not enjoy "Ben Hur", "Casablanca", "The Lord of the Rings" or "The son
> of the bride"...
Thats a good analogy! Cool... I'll have to use it sometimes...
David
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
>> > Just as the first three months of kicking a smoking habit are hell, so
>> > are the first two years of abstinence.
>> >
>> > From then on you feel good to be that clean inside.
>>
>> Egad, what kind of sexual activity are you involved in? Unless you are
>> some psycho catholic, why on earth would sex make you feel dirty?
Once I heard the voice of the Holy Ghost attest that God lives, that
Jesus is his name, and that Joseph Smith bore a true and faithful
testimony of him to the end of his days, fornication, masturbation,
pornography and the like have all felt dirty. Having also been married
these last 18 years, I can attest that sex with my wife is free of the
guilt and defilement that accompany fornication, masturbation,
pornography, and the like.
Until I heard the voice of the Holy Ghost, I had the clash of
conflicting interests (pro-activity and maybe-I-shouldn't) I think are
common to men by nature, after the visit of the Holy Ghost there has
been no confusion. Sexual intercourse with my wife is exhilarating.
Sex outside of marriage is an abomination.
I'm obliged to be patient and tolerant with the humans that share this
planet with me, they have different experiences and different
conclusions arising from their different experiences, so I'll decline to
rant or foam-up on this subject (after all the Lord has done no such
thing with me), and will let the threads die their natural deaths.
>> >You fornicating increase the chance of you contracting a lethal
>> >virus.
>>
>> Your living in the city increases the chance of getting lung cancer. Your
>> living in China *really* increases your chance of contracting a lethal
>> virus.
Sounds like another illogical non-sequiteur.
>> >It's the fornicating that's the primary transmissal behavior.
>>
>> Depends on the virus you're talking about, right?
Since we were talking about one virus in particular, you are cordially
invited to stay on topic.
Brian Brunner
>> Brian Brunner <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message news:<1ofe10tn9vjaa71oc...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 27 Jan 2004 03:23:20 -0800, poas...@yahoo.com (Basajaun) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > >> > Illogical non-sequiteur (as if there are *logical* ones). One does not
>> > >> > die from life-long abstinence,
>> > >>
>> > >> Strictly speaking, life-long <whatever> kills, as you are dead as a
>> > >> consequence.
>> >
>> > Negative.
>> >
>> > 'Dying from' indicates a causal relationship, not a casual coincidence.
>> > We don't die from life-long breathing, nor from abstinence.
>>
>> It was clearly a joke.
I apologize for not catching on that it was given in jest.
>> You can't die after NOT breathing all your life, and you DO die
>> after breathing all your life... so... :^)
You can and will die from not breathing for the rest of your life...
>> But nevermind, it was something we'd call in Spain "mental
>> masturbation"...
I'll plead guilty to the charge, if it is ever leveled against me!
What I try to avoid is a 'jacking off at the mouth' mentality.
>> > Just as the first three months of kicking a smoking habit are hell, so
>> > are the first two years of abstinence.
>> >
>> > From then on you feel good to be that clean inside.
>>
>> May God hear you, because I am begining my third year of (unwanted)
>> abstinence and it's not getting any better.
Ouch. Sorry. Since I don't live in your head (there's an occupancy
limit that is met or exceeded already) I can't say from here exactly
what is transpiring; perhaps my reply to DavidH just a few minutes ago
has something to do with how things have felt on this side.
>> I can't say I'm crazy for having sex... but I certainly miss it.
I didn't mean to suggest that the hunger goes away, but that the sense
of being clean is exhilarating enough that refusing offers to fornicate
is more natural than agreeing to fornicate.
>> I don't think I need it the way
>> an ex-alcoholic "needs" a drink, but the way Penelope missed Ulises,
>> or a caged bird misses the open skies. Does it make me an addict?.
I think not...
>> > 'Wrong' yourself. You're good at mixing unrelated factors and unrelated
>> > results.
>>
>> Are they really unrelated?. So if everyone in the third world could
>> afford, or even find, a condom, you think that their sex-related
>> problems would not be alleviated?. I can't tell about abstinence,
>> because there is no place in the world where undesired childeren or
>> AIDS are taken care of that way (except maybe your home... and mine,
>> now that I think of it :^( ), but I can tell about information,
>> freedom and easy access to contraceptive and barrier methods, for in
>> Spain (and the rest of Europe, and north America, and every "first
>> world" country) they are being used quite successfully.
>>
>> > You fornicating increase the chance of you contracting a lethal
>> > virus. The fact that you can increase your chance by fornicating in
>> > zimbabwe where few people have indoor plumbing does not suggest that
>> > avoiding indoor plumbing increases the chance of contracting a lethal
>> > virus. It's the fornicating that's the primary transmissal behavior.
This was still in response to your jest that I took seriously.
>> No. It's the lack of information and barrier methods, such as condoms.
and, as you point out later, abstinence.
>> What makes me and an the average zimbabwean Joe different is
More things than we can list here.
>> that I do know how to use a condom and he doesn't.
More profound than this difference is the concept that you *must*
fornicate to be living right. They could be ignorant of the virus and
be quite safe if they espoused a different culture, one of abstinence
outside of marriage and continence within.
>> Thus, my chances of getting AIDS are
>> ridiculous compared to his, "fornicating" the very same.
It is true you could increase your risk to the same level he lives in.
>> Food prevents starvation, condoms prevent AIDS.
Condoms change the chance, but not to zero. This makes 'prevent' the
wrong word.
>> Noone says that a condom is more effective than abstinence.
I think you repeated my main point.
>> Art and fun-oriented sex are much alike. We can live w/o them, but they
>> make us human, and make our souls and senses richer.
Within the context of marriage, agreed.
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>> >
>> > >> but, there are protective measures.
>> >
>> > All of which have in common that your chance of catastrophe goes down,
>> > but remains significantly far above zero. Russian roulette is one
>> > bullet is a 6 chamber handgun; 18% chance of blowing your brains out.
>>
>> arent condoms supposed to work 99.9% of the time? that means if you have
>> sex 1000 time, only one time it would fail.
So your chance of contracting AIDS is .1% with condoms of what it is
without condoms. Is that risk acceptable? Not to me.
>> and russian roulette?
You can think of fornicating as a chance to ejaculate inside a vagina.
You can think of it as tempting chance that you'll contract HIV.
Compare that to the thrill of the gun going 'click' versus the
alternative of the gun going 'bang'.
>> 1 outta 600 and one outta 1000 is a pretty big change....
Not really.
>> your proposed risks are to be frank, utterly stupid act out.
That's how fornication looks to some of us humans, Saber. Utterly
stupid act-out. Attempted suicide.
>> > This is not in the same thread: lethal physical risk versus ethics or
>> > morality.
>>
>> your are advocating abstinence, so, sex is the thread.
OK, let's stick to sex.
>> especially when loving someone will likely reduce the risk of STDs, because you both will
>> get tested before engaging in sexual activities.
Why go for half-measures? Abstain until you find a girl who is as crazy
about you as you are about her, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the* *bed*.
Wear it out. Make it cringe at your approach.
Stay patient and faithful, and keep the AIDS chance *at* *stone* *cold*
*zero*.
>> > >> abstinence is safer
>> >
>> > This is the point I made!
>>
>> but its not the only option, and having sex isnt a bad option. just be
>> responsible with sex.
That is what I advocate; we have differing ideas about what 'be
responsible' implies and constrains.
>> but dont live in a bubble. living life is full of risks, and if you avoid
>> all of them, you are not goin to have a fun life.
As a husband of one and a father of 8, you're going to lecture me? I'll
just nod and agree.
>> is HIV a potential risk? yea, to say otherwise would be either ignorance or
>> lying. is it a big risk? not is you are careful.
Take care, feel free to keep us informed. You'll hear my opinion and
observation, but your decisions are your own to make.
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> Jesus is his name, and that Joseph Smith bore a true and faithful
> testimony of him to the end of his days
I'll presume that this post was a joke :)
You may be a lot of things, but psycho-religious fanatic is not one of them
as far as I can tell.
David
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> about you as you are about her, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the* *bed*.
> Wear it out. Make it cringe at your approach.
Suit yourself, I'm glad that I experienced variety in my life.
Drinking prune juice is probably healthier than chugging cola, but I'm
pretty happy with the decision I made there as well.
> Stay patient and faithful, and keep the AIDS chance *at* *stone* *cold*
> *zero*.
Unless your wife cheats on you of course.
Oh, she won't? What makes you so sure?
> As a husband of one and a father of 8, you're going to lecture me?
I fail to see how that has any impact, I'm a husband of one and father of
none, I guess I'm just better at using those modern methods of birth control
than you are. Seriously, last I checked humanity wasn't about to die out,
did you really need to bring another 8 humans onto this planet?
> Take care, feel free to keep us informed. You'll hear my opinion and
> observation, but your decisions are your own to make.
I just hope I'm not paying for your decision with my tax dollars in any way.
David
Basajaun
> On 28 Jan 2004 03:20:25 -0800, poas...@yahoo.com (Basajaun) wrote:
[big snip of good arguments]
> >> Noone says that a condom is more effective than abstinence.
>
> I think you repeated my main point.
>
> >> Art and fun-oriented sex are much alike. We can live w/o them, but they
> >> make us human, and make our souls and senses richer.
>
> Within the context of marriage, agreed.
Just when I start to feel hostility towards you... you are so
reasonable. Stop it or I won't be able to demonize you! :^)
Oh, and above in the thread David is kind to someone (me)... I just
hate reasonable people... you make the world so nice it's hard to hate
each other like brothers!
Now seriously, Brian, I understand and respect your beliefs, but I
don't share them in this issue. Let's shake hands and go on discussing
game-related subjects, like "do poison nova gases add to greenhouse
effect?" :^)
Basajaun
David Carson
I can't imagine that anyone would claim to be a Mormon - the religion
invented by Americans who thought the only thing that could make
Christianity better was if Jesus was an American, not a foreigner - if
they weren't. Brian's obsession with the fact that many people on this
newsgroup are actually getting laid also tends to support this idea.
Cheers!
David...
David H
> hate reasonable people... you make the world so nice it's hard to hate
> each other like brothers!
Shut the hell up you pathetic waste of genetic sludge.
:)
Basajaun
Ummm, you begin to sound like the brother I never had! :^)
Basajaun
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> > Once I heard the voice of the Holy Ghost attest that God lives, that
>> > Jesus is his name, and that Joseph Smith bore a true and faithful
>> > testimony of him to the end of his days
>>
>> I'll presume that this post was a joke :)
There was not anything in that vein that was not stone cold serious.
>> You may be a lot of things, but psycho-religious fanatic is not one of them
>> as far as I can tell.
I don't see the sequitur: do you assume that every person to whom the
Lord has spoken by the Holy Ghost is ipso facto a prf?
If so I'm a prf.
In which case, perhaps the definition of 'what is a prf' (and your 'prf
detector') need an adjustment.
Brian Brunner
>> Jesus was an American, not a foreigner
That isn't a doctrine held by any Mormon I know.
Brian Brunner
>> "do poison nova gases add to greenhouse effect?" :^)
There are too few houses in the game to tell, really.
However, the gasses generated from my consumption of pickled eggs,
sauerkraut, and various legumes is showing a 'greenhouse effect' where I
live.
David Carson
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, David Carson wrote:
>
>>>Jesus was an American, not a foreigner
>
> That isn't a doctrine held by any Mormon I know.
Ah, well, OK, Jesus was an alien, his prophet was an American.
http://www.exmormon.org/ might be helpful to you, try it.
Cheers!
David...
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
Well Austin, be that as it may, I still don't believe you :)
> >> You may be a lot of things, but psycho-religious fanatic is not one of
them
> >> as far as I can tell.
>
> I don't see the sequitur: do you assume that every person to whom the
> Lord has spoken by the Holy Ghost is ipso facto a prf?
Well... yes.
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>>
>> > There was not anything in that vein that was not stone cold serious.
>>
>> I still don't believe you :)
OK, we can both live with that.
>> > >> You may be a lot of things, but psycho-religious fanatic is not
>> > >> one of them as far as I can tell.
>> >
>> > I don't see the sequitur: do you assume that every person to whom the
>> > Lord has spoken by the Holy Ghost is ipso facto a prf?
>>
>> Well... yes.
You mentioned having enquired of God as to the fact of said being(s)
existence, to be proved by moving a piece of metal a small distance to
the left. If in response the metal moved as you asked, would you then
have met your own test of being a prf? If so I would question whether
you really wanted a response to be given, in which case the metal moved
as far as you *really* wanted it to, and you have therefore been given
the proof you sought.
Welcome to the PRF club.
Run for President-for-life?
There's a good prophet in it!
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> existence, to be proved by moving a piece of metal a small distance to
> the left.
I did, and I have even repeated the offer frequently since the first time I
devised this simple demonstration of existence.
> If in response the metal moved as you asked, would you then
> have met your own test of being a prf?
No, because I would have never called said being a "Holy Ghost". Rather, I
would have assumed that there was a powerful creature around, and I would
seek to understand more about this creature. I would continue to ignore
anything that other humans claiming to speak for this creature said, but
would probably consider listening to any advice of a super powerful
creature... its just common sense. At least until you can create weapons to
negate the threat.
> If so I would question whether
> you really wanted a response to be given, in which case the metal moved
> as far as you *really* wanted it to, and you have therefore been given
> the proof you sought.
Nope, the metal didn't move at all. My standards were very clear. It was a
precise distance that could have been easily measured.
> Welcome to the PRF club.
Well, the metal didn't even move... so I can't possibly be inducted yet...
David
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote
>>
>> > If in response the metal moved as you asked, would you then
>> > have met your own test of being a prf?
>>
>> No, because I would have never called said being a "Holy Ghost".
Is the name the central fact upon which you make discernment?
"The Father, The Son, and Fred" differs?
>> Rather, I would have assumed that there was a powerful creature around,
>> and I would seek to understand more about this creature.
Observing that we do not choose one anothers' responses (in this thread
or others) it should be assumed that whatever being interacts with you
will choose how they respond to whatever you put forth; sending a being
who manifests the name/title of Holy Ghost is not mine to demand or
refuse. I just report facts as I encountered them. It appears that you
have a limit in your willingness to run the test and evaluate the data:
No inspection of the data will conclude the existence of a Holy Ghost.
>> I would continue to ignore anything that other humans claiming to speak
>> for this creature said, but would probably consider listening to any
>> advice of a super powerful creature... its just common sense.
This is as sensible as not trusting DT to speak for me, or vice versa,
as we do not attest that the other is a faithful witness. Whereas said
Powerful Being both game the names mentioned, and attested that Joseph
Smith did bear a faithful witness to the end of his days, for me to
'continue to ignore' would be me instructing said Powerful Being what
not to say to me.
>> At least until you can create weapons to negate the threat.
I"m at a loss to discern whether you indulge in jest, or manifest an
envy/paranoia complex: on the basis of a being being super-powerful, you
perceive a threat?
>> > If so I would suggest that the metal moved as far as you *really*
>> > wanted it to, and you have therefore been given the proof you sought.
>>
>> Nope, the metal didn't move at all.
That is what you wanted: nothing that would inaugurate you into the PRF
club.
Saber
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>
> >> "Brian Brunner" wrote
> >> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> but, there are protective measures.
> >> >
> >> > All of which have in common that your chance of catastrophe goes
down,
> >> > but remains significantly far above zero. Russian roulette is one
> >> > bullet is a 6 chamber handgun; 18% chance of blowing your brains out.
> >>
> >> arent condoms supposed to work 99.9% of the time? that means if you
have
> >> sex 1000 time, only one time it would fail.
>
> So your chance of contracting AIDS is .1% with condoms of what it is
> without condoms. Is that risk acceptable? Not to me.
yea, it is to me. there are risks with everything we do, and i try to live
my life and enjoy it in many ways. that includes having sex.
>
> >> and russian roulette?
>
> You can think of fornicating as a chance to ejaculate inside a vagina.
> You can think of it as tempting chance that you'll contract HIV.
i like to think of sex as an enjoyable act.
> Compare that to the thrill of the gun going 'click' versus the
> alternative of the gun going 'bang'.
um.... ok, i compared that. i prefer sex.
>
> >> 1 outta 600 and one outta 1000 is a pretty big change....
>
> Not really.
those 400 are nothing?
>
> >> your proposed risks are to be frank, utterly stupid act out.
>
> That's how fornication looks to some of us humans, Saber. Utterly
> stupid act-out. Attempted suicide.
and i feel sorry for people that think that. it is not suicide. if i
wanted to kill myself, i would run out on the partially frozen lake ontario
which is about 200 feet to my right and jump in the water. much easier. or
better yet, i got knives, i could cut myself. and im sure i could get my
hands on a gun, why not blow the back of my head out? or, after the party
tonight, why dont i go driving at high speeds? the roads are icy and there
is about 5 feet on snow on the ground. that with a lot of vodka in me, im
sure i could manage to kill myself.
sex is not on par with those things. i cannot even think of what logic it
takes to put it on par with them.
>
> >> > This is not in the same thread: lethal physical risk versus ethics or
> >> > morality.
> >>
> >> your are advocating abstinence, so, sex is the thread.
>
> OK, let's stick to sex.
>
> >> especially when loving someone will likely reduce the risk of STDs,
because you both will
> >> get tested before engaging in sexual activities.
>
> Why go for half-measures? Abstain until you find a girl who is as crazy
> about you as you are about her, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the* *bed*.
> Wear it out. Make it cringe at your approach.
marrying a girl at 18? when i have no money, no job and am in school?
um.... no thanks. i would rather wait until i am able to at least support
myself.
>
> Stay patient and faithful, and keep the AIDS chance *at* *stone* *cold*
> *zero*.
>
> >> > >> abstinence is safer
> >> >
> >> > This is the point I made!
> >>
> >> but its not the only option, and having sex isnt a bad option. just be
> >> responsible with sex.
>
> That is what I advocate; we have differing ideas about what 'be
> responsible' implies and constrains.
hence this thread
>
> >> but dont live in a bubble. living life is full of risks, and if you
avoid
> >> all of them, you are not goin to have a fun life.
>
> As a husband of one and a father of 8, you're going to lecture me? I'll
> just nod and agree.
age doest always mean you know are right... young people can lecture older
people. i was just explaining my take on life. ill try to remember not to
do that when replying to you so you dont have to be rude again. i may be
young compared to you, but im not stupid and i dont live in a bubble, so i
usually know what im talkin about. (incase you couldnt tell, i viewed that
as an attack, and i dont like attacks. if you didnt mean it as one, just
tell me that and please explain what you meant.)
>
> >> is HIV a potential risk? yea, to say otherwise would be either
ignorance or
> >> lying. is it a big risk? not is you are careful.
>
> Take care, feel free to keep us informed. You'll hear my opinion and
> observation, but your decisions are your own to make.
>
ok, now. i know why we arent agreeing. you are religious and i am not. i
do not believe in any higher power or powers. i believe i am in control of
myself, i only live once (or maybe get reincarnated, i havent thought about
that too much), and should live my life to the fullest. you are not goin to
change my beliefs, and i am not goin to change yours - nor do i even want
to. i respect others beliefs, except when they try to impose them on me.
--
Saber
Saber
>
> "Saber" <sab...@IEATSPAMMERSoptonline.net> wrote in message
> >heres an analogy:
> > skydiving is dangerous. you jump out of an airplane, and hope you
packed
> > your parachute correctly and that it doesnt fail.
>
> A small point of interest: Driving 100km on the highway entails a greater
> risk of death than skydiving.
im not quite sure how fast 100kmh is, but i drove at 80 mph a bit back home,
and i think thats faster. so... i should go skydiving sometime then.
>
> Back to your regularly scheduled Brian the RetroCatholic hour.
catholic hour? damn, i musta taken a wrong turn, i thought this was a place
for the devil (diablo - devil.. ok, bad joke)
>
> >there are risks with having guns in the same house as kids
>
> Minor quibble. When you have sex, the only person you are risking is
> yourself (and perhaps your partner, though presumably you haven't been
> infected yet which is why the activity is "risky" for you). When you have
a
> gun in your house, you are risking the life of people around you, and its
> not your decision to make.
yea, but through your (not you... you know what i mean) irresponsible
behavior, someone could die. but yea, i see your point.
--
Saber
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>>
>> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>> >
>> > >> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> > So your chance of contracting AIDS is .1% with condoms of what it is
>> > without condoms. Is that risk acceptable? Not to me.
>>
>> yea, it is to me. there are risks with everything we do, and i try to live
>> my life and enjoy it in many ways. that includes having sex.
At the level of comparative risk-taking, I'll call that your choice..
>> > >> your proposed risks are to be frank, utterly stupid act out.
>> >
>> > That's how fornication looks to some of us humans, Saber. Utterly
>> > stupid act-out. Attempted suicide.
>>
>> and i feel sorry for people that think that. it is not suicide.
It is if you come up with the virus. That's point of likening 'safe
sex' to Russian Roulette: you change the number of empty cylinders per
bullet, but not the nature of the game.
>> I cannot even think of what logic it takes to put it on par with them.
There are less-likely-to-succeed methods of attempted suicide than 'safe
sex'. The point is that *one* *success* at attempting to find and
acquire the HIV will ruin your day more than an unwanted pregnancy ever
could. My counsel (stated elsewhere) was to abstain, until you find the
gal you are sufficiently crazy about to abide with for life, or longer
if possible, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the* *bed* however you two
enjoy, putting the risk of HIV at *stone* *cold* *zero*.
>> > Why go for half-measures? Abstain until you find a girl who is as crazy
>> > about you as you are about her, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the* *bed*.
>> > Wear it out. Make it cringe at your approach.
>>
>> marrying a girl at 18? when i have no money, no job and am in school?
I didn't say marry now, I spoke rather clearly.
>> > That is what I advocate; we have differing ideas about what 'be
>> > responsible' implies and constrains.
>>
>> hence this thread
Yup, and under all the differences in opinions and definitions, there is
no acrimony or excoriation. This is one of the more present
disagreements I've had in this newsgroup. Thanks for talking with me.
>> > As a husband of one and a father of 8, you're going to lecture me? I'll
>> > just nod and agree.
>>
>> age doest always mean you know are right...
The number of times I've screwed things up attests to this.
>> young people can lecture older people...so you dont have to be rude again.
I don't think I was more rude than you speaking of living in a bubble.
>> i may be
>> young compared to you, but im not stupid and i dont live in a bubble, so i
>> usually know what im talkin about. (in case you couldnt tell, i viewed that
>> as an attack, and i dont like attacks. if you didnt mean it as one, just
>> tell me that and please explain what you meant.)
No, it wasn't an attack. I haven't put any attacks in this thread.
Please tell me which part came across as an attack...
>> ok, now. i know why we arent agreeing. you are religious and i am not.
At your age I wasn't either, so watch out! (what happened to me might
happen to you!)
>> i do not believe in any higher power or powers. i believe i am in control of
>> myself, i only live once (or maybe get reincarnated, i havent thought about
>> that too much),
Someday, when you're interested, ask me how I view resurrection vs
re-incarnation.
>> and should live my life to the fullest. you are not goin to
>> change my beliefs, and i am not goin to change yours - nor do i even want
>> to. i respect others beliefs, except when they try to impose them on me.
As you mentioned lecturing: each of us can peaceably state our opinions
and beliefs, and we can accept a peaceable disagreement.
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> "The Father, The Son, and Fred" differs?
Actually, its the holy ghost moniker in general that I find a little
ludicrous, if you must know.
> >> At least until you can create weapons to negate the threat.
>
> I"m at a loss to discern whether you indulge in jest, or manifest an
> envy/paranoia complex: on the basis of a being being super-powerful, you
> perceive a threat?
Well, lets say there is this super powerful being. Why should I change my
life in any way to placate this creature? Obviously, the answer is fear of
retribution. In the christian religion, retribution comes in the form of
hell. In the jewish religion, retribution comes as nirvana. In the Hindu
religion, retribution is reincarnation (which, intriguingly, is heaven for
many religions).
Now, if I was able to develop a weapon that would remove that power of this
super powerful being to affect me, then I would no longer have to listen to
it in any way, right? I may *choose* to listen to it, much as I sometimes
take advice from other humans, but in the end it would be my decision and
not a value forced upon me under the greatest amount of durress conceivable.
> That is what you wanted: nothing that would inaugurate you into the PRF
> club.
Hell no, I wanted to quarter to move so I could start striking bargains.
Say, one lottery victory for a few lives saved. Seems fair to me.
David
David H
"Saber" <sab...@IEATSPAMMERSoptonline.net> wrote in message
greater
> > risk of death than skydiving.
>
> im not quite sure how fast 100kmh is, but i drove at 80 mph a bit back
home,
> and i think thats faster. so... i should go skydiving sometime then.
You will notice that I said 100km, not 100kmh. Different units, different
type of measurement. That said, 80mph is very fast, and you were much more
likely to die while driving at 80mph than you would be skydiviing.
Does that mean you should skydive? Of course not, you need to decide if the
benefits are worth the risk.
The benefits to driving very fast is that you save a few minutes on your
trip and its fun passing cars.
The benefits of skydiving are that it is one of the most exhilirating events
a human can experience.
Your evaluation of the benefits may differ.
> yea, but through your irresponsible
> behavior, someone could die. but yea, i see your point.
Thats often the case. When you were driving 80mph, you were also probably
risking someone else's life beyond your own. If drunk drivers and speeders
only hit lightpoles, I probably wouldn't care all that much about 'em.
Activities differ in the risk they pose for others (those getting any
benefit from the risk). Guns and drunk driving for example place a huge
burden of risk on the party that is not benefitting. Sexual activity and
skydiving, on the other hand, place almost the entire risk on the
individual(s) gaining the benefit.
David
>
> --
> Saber
>
>
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> > Is the name the central fact upon which you make discernment?
>> > "The Father, The Son, and Fred" differs?
>>
>> Actually, its the holy ghost moniker in general that I find a little
>> ludicrous, if you must know.
Gotchya.
>> > >> At least until you can create weapons to negate the threat.
>> >
>> > I"m at a loss to discern whether you indulge in jest, or manifest an
>> > envy/paranoia complex: on the basis of a being being super-powerful, you
>> > perceive a threat?
>>
>> Well, lets say there is this super powerful being. Why should I change my
>> life in any way to placate this creature?
This is a paranoid/racist attitude: you presume that you must placate
this being, as all powerful beings (powerful relative to me) are hostile
unless placated.
>> Obviously, the answer is fear of
>> retribution. In the christian religion, retribution comes in the form of
>> hell.
In some of the Christian religionS, retribution comes in various forms,
and without regard to you believing, or deciding not to believe
>> Hell no, I wanted to quarter to move so I could start striking bargains.
>> Say, one lottery victory for a few lives saved. Seems fair to me.
*boggles*
David H
"Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> this being, as all powerful beings (powerful relative to me) are hostile
> unless placated.
Of course not, I'm not assuming that any god is hostile in any way. If I
believed in the bible or any other fantasies, then I would probably consider
God to be a vengeful creature that needed to be satisfied by pantomining
crosses on my chest or other silly things. Luckily for me, however, I think
that the whole notion of God stretches the edge of credibility, especially
th version presented by most major religions.
You Brian, on the other hand, almost certainly believe in a vengeful God.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the entire point of religion is
to try and figure out what this suppose god wants and then, of course, to
give it to him. Why do we want to do that? Well, to avoid punishment
(hell) and possibly to receive some rewards as well, though for most humans
fear of punishment is a more efficient motivator.
> In some of the Christian religionS, retribution comes in various forms,
> and without regard to you believing, or deciding not to believe
What other form of retribution is there beyond hell? I mean, if you were
"bad", thats when you get screwed over, right?
As for christians believing that nonbelievers will get sent to hell as well,
I'm quite aware of that :). I'm told over and over that I need to be
fearful of their vengeful god and get some water poured on me, otherwise I'm
in for some very serious retribution.
David
Brian Brunner
>> You Brian, on the other hand, almost certainly believe in a vengeful God.
(strike one)
>> Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the entire point of religion is
>> to try and figure out what this suppose god wants and then, of course, to
>> give it to him. Why do we want to do that? Well, to avoid punishment
>> (hell) and possibly to receive some rewards as well, though for most humans
>> fear of punishment is a more efficient motivator.
(mostly correct)
>> > In some of the Christian religionS, retribution comes in various forms,
>> > and without regard to you believing, or deciding not to believe
>>
>> What other form of retribution is there beyond hell? I mean, if you were
>> "bad", thats when you get screwed over, right?
This is I think the Great Mystery: Heaven and Hell have the same
definition: spending forever in a Realm of Worlds full of people just
like you. Whether that's Heaven or Hell depends on whether you like
being treated just like you treat others. Are you presumptuous?
Judgmental? Impatient? Devoid of give-a-damn-itis? Obnoxiously
opinionated and overly full of yourself? Spending Forever in a place
full of people just like that could get vexatious.
>> I'm told over and over that I need to be
>> fearful of their vengeful god and get some water poured on me, otherwise I'm
>> in for some very serious retribution.
*snort* you might as well pour water on a bag of sand, thinking thereby
to please God, as to get baptized for the same purpose. Baptism as an
outward sign of an inward change and commitment, a token of a covenant
to strive to become like The Savior, that's another thing.
As for vengeance, He *does* send us children who are amazingly like
themselves, with wearying frequency.
Saber
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>
> >> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>
> sex'. The point is that *one* *success* at attempting to find and
> acquire the HIV will ruin your day more than an unwanted pregnancy ever
> could. My counsel (stated elsewhere) was to abstain, until you find the
> gal you are sufficiently crazy about to abide with for life, or longer
> if possible, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the* *bed* however you two
> enjoy, putting the risk of HIV at *stone* *cold* *zero*.
unless she or you gets infected through some other means. like giving
blood, receiving a shot, getting into an accident with someone that has HIV,
ect...
it will never be absolute 0, there will always be a chance. its just a
matter of what that chance is.
>
> >> > Why go for half-measures? Abstain until you find a girl who is as
crazy
> >> > about you as you are about her, marry her, and *tear* *up* *the*
*bed*.
> >> > Wear it out. Make it cringe at your approach.
> >>
> >> marrying a girl at 18? when i have no money, no job and am in school?
>
> I didn't say marry now, I spoke rather clearly.
but i want to be with a girl now....
>
> >> > That is what I advocate; we have differing ideas about what 'be
> >> > responsible' implies and constrains.
> >>
> >> hence this thread
>
> Yup, and under all the differences in opinions and definitions, there is
> no acrimony or excoriation. This is one of the more present
> disagreements I've had in this newsgroup. Thanks for talking with me.
present or pleasant? either way, youre welcome.
>
> >> > As a husband of one and a father of 8, you're going to lecture me?
I'll
> >> > just nod and agree.
> >>
> >> age doest always mean you know are right...
>
> The number of times I've screwed things up attests to this.
>
> >> young people can lecture older people...so you dont have to be rude
again.
>
> I don't think I was more rude than you speaking of living in a bubble.
i didnt think that was a rude statement, but if it was, im sorry.
>
> >> i may be
> >> young compared to you, but im not stupid and i dont live in a bubble,
so i
> >> usually know what im talkin about. (in case you couldnt tell, i viewed
that
> >> as an attack, and i dont like attacks. if you didnt mean it as one,
just
> >> tell me that and please explain what you meant.)
>
> No, it wasn't an attack. I haven't put any attacks in this thread.
> Please tell me which part came across as an attack...
saying you'll just nod and agree, thats saying you will just ignore what i
am saying and just yes me. at least to me, thats what i means. being told
that you will be ignored because you are giving your point of view... thats
where i was comin from.
>
> >> ok, now. i know why we arent agreeing. you are religious and i am
not.
>
> At your age I wasn't either, so watch out! (what happened to me might
> happen to you!)
i am not a stone-cold athiest, im open to other views so if i become
religious, then i do.
>
> >> i do not believe in any higher power or powers. i believe i am in
control of
> >> myself, i only live once (or maybe get reincarnated, i havent thought
about
> >> that too much),
>
> Someday, when you're interested, ask me how I view resurrection vs
> re-incarnation.
ok, im asking. (i like religious discussions. even though im not
religious, i like to learn about other peoples views.)
>
> >> and should live my life to the fullest. you are not goin to
> >> change my beliefs, and i am not goin to change yours - nor do i even
want
> >> to. i respect others beliefs, except when they try to impose them on
me.
>
> As you mentioned lecturing: each of us can peaceably state our opinions
> and beliefs, and we can accept a peaceable disagreement.
which is why i like these kinda discussions here, they usually dont get too
outta hand.
--
Saber
Brian Brunner
>> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, "Saber" wrote:
>> >
>> > >> "Brian Brunner" wrote
>> >
>> > There are less-likely-to-succeed methods of attempted suicide than 'safe
>> > sex'.
>> >
>> unless she or you gets infected through some other means. like giving
>> blood, receiving a shot, getting into an accident with someone that has HIV,
>> ect...
All of which risks arise through accident or external aggression, not
through 'attempted suicide'.
>> > >> > Why go for half-measures? Abstain until you find a girl who is as
>> > >> > crazy about you as you are about her, marry her, and *tear* *up*
>> > >> > *the* *bed*. Wear it out. Make it cringe at your approach.
>> > >>
>> > >> marrying a girl at 18? when i have no money, no job and am in school?
>> >
>> > I didn't say marry now, I spoke rather clearly.
>>
>> but i want to be with a girl now....
This is one of the hallmark characteristics of maturity: knowing what we
want now, and what we want long-term, and pursuing a course that brings
us to our long-term desires even when (especially when) the pursuit of
the long-term desires requires deferring our immediate wants. One thing
that gets in the way of maturity (as here defined) is being so hard and
hot in pursuit of what we want now that we have no clear consideration
of what we want long-term, and therefore cannot discern to what extent
our immediate wants obstruct our long-term happiness.
>> > No, it wasn't an attack. I haven't put any attacks in this thread.
>> > Please tell me which part came across as an attack...
>>
>> saying you'll just nod and agree,
Looking back on the thread, the 'nod and agree' comment was in response
to being told implicitly that I live in a bubble. Was that in response
to something else you saw as an attack?
I was once young, opinionated, full of myself, and ready to teach my
elders the things I'd figured out in a few years as though to correct
what they'd thought out in a like number of decades. In some cases I
was right, mostly I was full of something other than wisdom.
>> > Someday, when you're interested, ask me how I view resurrection vs
>> > re-incarnation.
>>
>> ok, im asking. (i like religious discussions. even though im not
>> religious, i like to learn about other peoples views.)
re-incarnation: like our current birth, we will start off with no useful
memory of the mistakes we've made before (i.e. in this current life),
nor the lessons learned from them; we're basically doomed to be as
stupid the next round as we've been this round. We will have
governments populated with people as inept and corrupt as we now have,
stumbling in the dark. This is not my idea of heaven. This time we've
marveled at how many transistors we can etch into a finger-nail-sized
piece of silicon; maybe next time we'll be marveling at how to make fire
and bricks.
Resurrection: retaining memory and lessons-learned, able to learn more
lessons, until we have figured out and fixed every flaw in our character
and are at as much peace with Truth as we are capable of grasping. That
sounds closer to Heaven than re-incarnation.
Then there's re-intarnation, which is coming back as a hillbilly.
>> > As you mentioned lecturing: each of us can peaceably state our opinions
>> > and beliefs, and we can accept a peaceable disagreement.
>>
>> which is why i like these kinda discussions here, they usually dont get too
>> outta hand.
The ones I've had with you have been downright present.
Joey
probably have a lot in common.
I abstained til marriage. We welcomed our children.
and Randy, you should know that anyone playing this game and posting
frequently to this newsgroup should be held in suspicion of having a
social life, whatever the message's content.
-Joey
ring wrote:
>
> "Brian Brunner" <brian....@verizon.net.profit> wrote in message
> news:017510pugjgqt3ht3...@4ax.com...
> > Abstinence is distinctly safer
>
> Wow! During the past couple days you post 5 or 6 messages in a video game
> newsgroup singing the praises of abstinence... You must have one hell of a
> social life, Brian.
>
> Living in a plastic bubble, never eating or touching anything that hasn't
> been chemically sterilized, and never leaving the house is much safer too.
>
> Sex is not a behavior that can be easily stopped by just telling people it's
> dangerous. It's a self-rewarding behavior; doing it feels good, and is its
> own reward. There are no immediate consequences, no matter how dire the
> others may be. People don't smoke because they love getting lung cancer and
> heart disease and hacking like an old woman in the morning, people smoke
> because it's pleasurable.
>
> Despite all this, the only thing worse than someone who beats people over
> the head with abstinence is a rabid non-smoker. Funny how that works; I'd
> rather be locked in a room with a dozen chain-smoking sex maniacs than one
> preaching, self-righteous primate.
>
> --
> It is insufficient to protect | Randy
> ourselves with laws; we need | URL: www.geocities.com/ring_eldest/
> to protect ourselves with | Email: ring_eld...@hotmail.com
> mathematics. -Bruce Schneier | Talk: 901.XXX.XXXX