Re: "Now kill all the boys"
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
> <5aef7f0f-3d65-44c7-ab1f-ebe867f93...@g3g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 22, 10:06=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ff6193c0-9987-429e-be01-4aa0e546e...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 22, 7:13=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <9f6a6a74-ef8d-4116-9f6c-202746b3b...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 21, 2:38=3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> > ote:
>
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Does your answer suggest that you do *not* think Israeli soldie=
> > rs
> > > > > > > > (combatants) have the right to live?
>
> > > > > > > ** =3D3DA0depends on who they kill and for what reason.
>
> > > > > > And what would those be?
>
> > > > > ** =3DA0killing attackers in self defense is one.
>
> > > > > > Do you make the same allowances for Palestinians?
>
> > > > > ** =3DA0there are no exceptions.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> > > > Okay. =A0Let's summarize:
>
> > > > 1) =A0You refused to acknowledge basic human rights until I reworded th=
> > e
> > > > question to say "for non-combatants"
> > > > 2) =A0Then I asked if you were implying that Israeli soldiers don't hav=
> > e
> > > > basic human rights, since they are combatants.
>
> > > ** =A0Combatants does not differentiate between those who do bad things f=
> > rom
> > > those who do good.
>
> > > > 3) =A0So now you've added that it's okay to be a combatant if you are
> > > > "killing attackers in self defense"
>
> > > ** =A0agreed
>
> > > > 4) =A0And you added that there are "no exceptions."
>
> > > ** =A0correct.
>
> > > > That begs the following question: "Do you allow that Palestinians that
> > > > are fighting an occupying power, in self defense, still have basic
> > > > human rights?"
>
> > > ** =A0I see nothing amiss with going after those who committed previous
> > > terrrorist acts that involved murder.
>
> > Measures, you ignored the question.
>
> > "Do you allow that Palestinians that are fighting an occupying power,
> > in self defense, still have basic human rights?"
>
> ** ____
>
You ignored the question -- again. Why?
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
�R. L. Measures
<c6950144-d85b-4ebb...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 1:07=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <5aef7f0f-3d65-44c7-ab1f-ebe867f93...@g3g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 22, 10:06=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <ff6193c0-9987-429e-be01-4aa0e546e...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 22, 7:13=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <9f6a6a74-ef8d-4116-9f6c-202746b3b...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com=
> >,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 21, 2:38=3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Meas=
> ures) wr=3D
> > > ote:
> >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > Does your answer suggest that you do *not* think Israeli so=
> ldie=3D
> > > rs
> > > > > > > > > (combatants) have the right to live?
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0depends on who they kill and for what reason.
> >
> > > > > > > And what would those be?
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0killing attackers in self defense is one.
> >
> > > > > > > Do you make the same allowances for Palestinians?
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0there are no exceptions.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > Okay. =3DA0Let's summarize:
> >
> > > > > 1) =3DA0You refused to acknowledge basic human rights until I rewor=
> ded th=3D
> > > e
> > > > > question to say "for non-combatants"
> > > > > 2) =3DA0Then I asked if you were implying that Israeli soldiers don=
> 't hav=3D
> > > e
> > > > > basic human rights, since they are combatants.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Combatants does not differentiate between those who do bad th=
> ings f=3D
> > > rom
> > > > those who do good.
> >
> > > > > 3) =3DA0So now you've added that it's okay to be a combatant if you=
> are
> > > > > "killing attackers in self defense"
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0agreed
> >
> > > > > 4) =3DA0And you added that there are "no exceptions."
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0correct.
> >
> > > > > That begs the following question: "Do you allow that Palestinians t=
> hat
> > > > > are fighting an occupying power, in self defense, still have basic
> > > > > human rights?"
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0I see nothing amiss with going after those who committed prev=
> ious
> > > > terrrorist acts that involved murder.
> >
> > > Measures, you ignored the question.
> >
> > > "Do you allow that Palestinians that are fighting an occupying power,
> > > in self defense, still have basic human rights?"
> >
> > ** =A0____
> >
>
> You ignored the question -- again. Why?
>
** Israel would not be there if there were no terrorists in Gaza.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
Measures, you ignored the question. Again. Why?
Let's refresh your memory.
When I asked you if you support universal rights for all people you
accused me of using that question as a "cover" for "bad" people. You
called the question "indeterminate."
You refused to answer the question until it was modified to apply
*only* to non-combatants.
But then I asked you meant that Israeli soldiers don't have basic
human rights.
You back peddled and said that the Israeli combatants have basic human
rights.
So now you're in a bind because the next question is whether or not
you make the exception for all combatants, or just the Israelis.
See your conundrum? You can't resolve it by posting replies like
"bananas." You need a cogent, reasoned response that explains the
inherent racism in your replies.
�R. L. Measures
<a5370dd2-333c-4b11...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 8:05=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <c6950144-d85b-4ebb-b1d1-10ddfc820...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 23, 1:07=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <5aef7f0f-3d65-44c7-ab1f-ebe867f93...@g3g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 22, 10:06=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) w=
> rote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <ff6193c0-9987-429e-be01-4aa0e546e...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 22, 7:13=3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Meas=
> ures) wr=3D
> > > ote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <9f6a6a74-ef8d-4116-9f6c-202746b3b...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups=
> .com=3D
> > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2:38=3D3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D3D95R.=
> L. Meas=3D
> > > ures) wr=3D3D
> > > > > ote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > Does your answer suggest that you do *not* think Israel=
> i so=3D
> > > ldie=3D3D
> > > > > rs
> > > > > > > > > > > (combatants) have the right to live?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0depends on who they kill and for what reaso=
> n.
> >
> > > > > > > > > And what would those be?
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0killing attackers in self defense is one.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Do you make the same allowances for Palestinians?
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0there are no exceptions.
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > > > Okay. =3D3DA0Let's summarize:
> >
> > > > > > > 1) =3D3DA0You refused to acknowledge basic human rights until I=
> rewor=3D
> > > ded th=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > question to say "for non-combatants"
> > > > > > > 2) =3D3DA0Then I asked if you were implying that Israeli soldie=
> rs don=3D
> > > 't hav=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > > basic human rights, since they are combatants.
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0Combatants does not differentiate between those who do =
> bad th=3D
> > > ings f=3D3D
> > > > > rom
> > > > > > those who do good.
> >
> > > > > > > 3) =3D3DA0So now you've added that it's okay to be a combatant =
> if you=3D
> > > =A0are
> > > > > > > "killing attackers in self defense"
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0agreed
> >
> > > > > > > 4) =3D3DA0And you added that there are "no exceptions."
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0correct.
> >
> > > > > > > That begs the following question: "Do you allow that Palestinia=
> ns t=3D
> > > hat
> > > > > > > are fighting an occupying power, in self defense, still have ba=
> sic
> > > > > > > human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0I see nothing amiss with going after those who committe=
> d prev=3D
> > > ious
> > > > > > terrrorist acts that involved murder.
> >
> > > > > Measures, you ignored the question.
> >
> > > > > "Do you allow that Palestinians that are fighting an occupying powe=
> r,
> > > > > in self defense, still have basic human rights?"
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0____
> >
> > > You ignored the question -- again. =A0Why?
> >
> > ** =A0Israel would not be there if there were no terrorists in Gaza.
>
> Measures, you ignored the question. Again. Why?
>
> Let's refresh your memory.
>
> When I asked you if you support universal rights for all people you
> accused me of using that question as a "cover" for "bad" people. You
> called the question "indeterminate."
** correct. mixing the bad with the good makes the question indeterminate.
>
> You refused to answer the question until it was modified to apply
> *only* to non-combatants.
** there are two kinds of combatants, defenders and agreessors.
>
> But then I asked you meant that Israeli soldiers don't have basic
> human rights.
** defenders yes, agressors no.
>
> You back peddled and said that the Israeli combatants have basic human
> rights.
** whick kind of Israeli combatants, defenders or agressors?
>
> So now you're in a bind because the next question is whether or not
> you make the exception for all combatants, or just the Israelis.
** Israeli agressors are the same as Palestinian agressors. Israeli
defenders are the same as Pales
>
> See your conundrum? You can't resolve it by posting replies like
> "bananas." You need a cogent, reasoned response that explains the
> inherent racism in your replies.
>
** amazing
Duwaynea Anderson
My question to you was this:
1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
to personal freedom/self determination?
Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. You
say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
What people are *born* bad, Measures? In your twisted, racist, mixed-
up mind, what races have babies that are *born* bad?
>
>
>
> > You refused to answer the question until it was modified to apply
> > *only* to non-combatants.
>
> ** there are two kinds of combatants, defenders and agreessors.
But so far you have refused to allow that any combatants except
Israelis retain their human rights. You've carved out a special
exclusion for human rights based on ethnicity.
>
>
>
> > But then I asked you meant that Israeli soldiers don't have basic
> > human rights.
>
> ** defenders yes, agressors no.
Defenders of any ethnicity? Even Palestinian defenders?
>
>
>
> > You back peddled and said that the Israeli combatants have basic human
> > rights.
>
> ** whick kind of Israeli combatants, defenders or agressors?
It's your exclusion. You tell us.
>
>
>
> > So now you're in a bind because the next question is whether or not
> > you make the exception for all combatants, or just the Israelis.
>
> ** Israeli agressors are the same as Palestinian agressors. Israeli
> defenders are the same as Pales
You choked on it. Didn't you?
>
> > See your conundrum? You can't resolve it by posting replies like
> > "bananas." You need a cogent, reasoned response that explains the
> > inherent racism in your replies.
>
> ** amazing
>
> --
�R. L. Measures
<3324d7c7-52c9-48f7...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 9:01=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a5370dd2-333c-4b11-9fb4-a9b04ad09...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 28, 8:05=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <c6950144-d85b-4ebb-b1d1-10ddfc820...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 23, 1:07=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <5aef7f0f-3d65-44c7-ab1f-ebe867f93...@g3g2000pra.googlegroups.com=
> >,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 22, 10:06=3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Mea=
> sures) w=3D
> > > rote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <ff6193c0-9987-429e-be01-4aa0e546e...@w31g2000prd.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D
> > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 22, 7:13=3D3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D3D95R.=
> L. Meas=3D
> > > ures) wr=3D3D
> > > > > ote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <9f6a6a74-ef8d-4116-9f6c-202746b3b...@a5g2000pre.googlegr=
> oups=3D
> > > .com=3D3D
> > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2:38=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D=
> 3D3D95R.=3D
> > > =A0L. Meas=3D3D
> > > > > ures) wr=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does your answer suggest that you do *not* think Is=
> rael=3D
> > > i so=3D3D
> > > > > ldie=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > rs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (combatants) have the right to live?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3D3DA0depends on who they kill and for what=
> reaso=3D
> > > n.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > And what would those be?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0killing attackers in self defense is one.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you make the same allowances for Palestinians?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0there are no exceptions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > > > > > Okay. =3D3D3DA0Let's summarize:
> >
> > > > > > > > > 1) =3D3D3DA0You refused to acknowledge basic human rights u=
> ntil I=3D
> > > =A0rewor=3D3D
> > > > > ded th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > question to say "for non-combatants"
> > > > > > > > > 2) =3D3D3DA0Then I asked if you were implying that Israeli =
> soldie=3D
> > > rs don=3D3D
> > > > > 't hav=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > basic human rights, since they are combatants.
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0Combatants does not differentiate between those w=
> ho do =3D
> > > bad th=3D3D
> > > > > ings f=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > rom
> > > > > > > > those who do good.
> >
> > > > > > > > > 3) =3D3D3DA0So now you've added that it's okay to be a comb=
> atant =3D
> > > if you=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0are
> > > > > > > > > "killing attackers in self defense"
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0agreed
> >
> > > > > > > > > 4) =3D3D3DA0And you added that there are "no exceptions."
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > > That begs the following question: "Do you allow that Palest=
> inia=3D
> > > ns t=3D3D
> > > > > hat
> > > > > > > > > are fighting an occupying power, in self defense, still hav=
> e ba=3D
> > > sic
> > > > > > > > > human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0I see nothing amiss with going after those who co=
> mmitte=3D
> > > d prev=3D3D
> > > > > ious
> > > > > > > > terrrorist acts that involved murder.
> >
> > > > > > > Measures, you ignored the question.
> >
> > > > > > > "Do you allow that Palestinians that are fighting an occupying =
> powe=3D
> > > r,
> > > > > > > in self defense, still have basic human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0____
> >
> > > > > You ignored the question -- again. =3DA0Why?
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Israel would not be there if there were no terrorists in Gaza=
> .
> >
> > > Measures, you ignored the question. =A0Again. =A0Why?
> >
> > > Let's refresh your memory.
> >
> > > When I asked you if you support universal rights for all people you
> > > accused me of using that question as a "cover" for "bad" people. =A0You
> > > called the question "indeterminate."
> >
> > ** =A0correct. =A0mixing the bad with the good makes the question indeter=
> minate. =A0
>
> My question to you was this:
** been there done that Duwayne,
end
>
> 1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
> certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
> to personal freedom/self determination?
>
> Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. You
> say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
>
> What people are *born* bad, Measures? In your twisted, racist, mixed-
> up mind, what races have babies that are *born* bad?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > You refused to answer the question until it was modified to apply
> > > *only* to non-combatants.
> >
> > ** =A0there are two kinds of combatants, defenders and agreessors.
>
> But so far you have refused to allow that any combatants except
> Israelis retain their human rights. You've carved out a special
> exclusion for human rights based on ethnicity.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > But then I asked you meant that Israeli soldiers don't have basic
> > > human rights.
> >
> > ** =A0defenders yes, agressors no. =A0
>
> Defenders of any ethnicity? Even Palestinian defenders?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > You back peddled and said that the Israeli combatants have basic human
> > > rights.
> >
> > ** =A0whick kind of Israeli combatants, defenders or agressors?
>
> It's your exclusion. You tell us.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > So now you're in a bind because the next question is whether or not
> > > you make the exception for all combatants, or just the Israelis.
> >
> > ** =A0Israeli agressors are the same as Palestinian agressors. =A0Israeli
> > defenders are the same as Pales
>
> You choked on it. Didn't you?
>
>
> >
> > > See your conundrum? =A0You can't resolve it by posting replies like
> > > "bananas." =A0You need a cogent, reasoned response that explains the
> > > inherent racism in your replies.
> >
> > ** =A0amazing
>
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R. L. Measures
<3324d7c7-52c9-48f7...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 9:01=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a5370dd2-333c-4b11-9fb4-a9b04ad09...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 28, 8:05=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <c6950144-d85b-4ebb-b1d1-10ddfc820...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 23, 1:07=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <5aef7f0f-3d65-44c7-ab1f-ebe867f93...@g3g2000pra.googlegroups.com=
> >,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 22, 10:06=3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Mea=
> sures) w=3D
> > > rote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <ff6193c0-9987-429e-be01-4aa0e546e...@w31g2000prd.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D
> > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 22, 7:13=3D3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D3D95R.=
> L. Meas=3D
> > > ures) wr=3D3D
> > > > > ote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <9f6a6a74-ef8d-4116-9f6c-202746b3b...@a5g2000pre.googlegr=
> oups=3D
> > > .com=3D3D
> > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2:38=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D=
> 3D3D95R.=3D
> > > =A0L. Meas=3D3D
> > > > > ures) wr=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does your answer suggest that you do *not* think Is=
> rael=3D
> > > i so=3D3D
> > > > > ldie=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > rs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (combatants) have the right to live?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3D3DA0depends on who they kill and for what=
> reaso=3D
> > > n.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > And what would those be?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0killing attackers in self defense is one.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you make the same allowances for Palestinians?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0there are no exceptions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > > > > > Okay. =3D3D3DA0Let's summarize:
> >
> > > > > > > > > 1) =3D3D3DA0You refused to acknowledge basic human rights u=
> ntil I=3D
> > > =A0rewor=3D3D
> > > > > ded th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > question to say "for non-combatants"
> > > > > > > > > 2) =3D3D3DA0Then I asked if you were implying that Israeli =
> soldie=3D
> > > rs don=3D3D
> > > > > 't hav=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > basic human rights, since they are combatants.
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0Combatants does not differentiate between those w=
> ho do =3D
> > > bad th=3D3D
> > > > > ings f=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > rom
> > > > > > > > those who do good.
> >
> > > > > > > > > 3) =3D3D3DA0So now you've added that it's okay to be a comb=
> atant =3D
> > > if you=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0are
> > > > > > > > > "killing attackers in self defense"
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0agreed
> >
> > > > > > > > > 4) =3D3D3DA0And you added that there are "no exceptions."
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > > That begs the following question: "Do you allow that Palest=
> inia=3D
> > > ns t=3D3D
> > > > > hat
> > > > > > > > > are fighting an occupying power, in self defense, still hav=
> e ba=3D
> > > sic
> > > > > > > > > human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0I see nothing amiss with going after those who co=
> mmitte=3D
> > > d prev=3D3D
> > > > > ious
> > > > > > > > terrrorist acts that involved murder.
> >
> > > > > > > Measures, you ignored the question.
> >
> > > > > > > "Do you allow that Palestinians that are fighting an occupying =
> powe=3D
> > > r,
> > > > > > > in self defense, still have basic human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0____
> >
> > > > > You ignored the question -- again. =3DA0Why?
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Israel would not be there if there were no terrorists in Gaza=
> .
> >
> > > Measures, you ignored the question. =A0Again. =A0Why?
> >
> > > Let's refresh your memory.
> >
> > > When I asked you if you support universal rights for all people you
> > > accused me of using that question as a "cover" for "bad" people. =A0You
> > > called the question "indeterminate."
> >
> > ** =A0correct. =A0mixing the bad with the good makes the question indeter=
> minate. =A0
>
> My question to you was this:
>
> 1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
> certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
> to personal freedom/self determination?
>
> Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. You
> say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
>
> What people are *born* bad, Measures? In your twisted, racist, mixed-
> up mind, what races have babies that are *born* bad?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > You refused to answer the question until it was modified to apply
> > > *only* to non-combatants.
> >
> > ** =A0there are two kinds of combatants, defenders and agreessors.
>
> But so far you have refused to allow that any combatants except
> Israelis retain their human rights. You've carved out a special
> exclusion for human rights based on ethnicity.
>
** I wonder if Kaopectate works on logorrhea as well as diarrhea?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > But then I asked you meant that Israeli soldiers don't have basic
> > > human rights.
> >
> > ** =A0defenders yes, agressors no. =A0
>
> Defenders of any ethnicity? Even Palestinian defenders?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > You back peddled and said that the Israeli combatants have basic human
> > > rights.
> >
> > ** =A0whick kind of Israeli combatants, defenders or agressors?
>
> It's your exclusion. You tell us.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > So now you're in a bind because the next question is whether or not
> > > you make the exception for all combatants, or just the Israelis.
> >
> > ** =A0Israeli agressors are the same as Palestinian agressors. =A0Israeli
> > defenders are the same as Pales
>
> You choked on it. Didn't you?
>
>
> >
> > > See your conundrum? =A0You can't resolve it by posting replies like
> > > "bananas." =A0You need a cogent, reasoned response that explains the
> > > inherent racism in your replies.
> >
> > ** =A0amazing
>
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
<snip>
> > My question to you was this:
>
> ** been there done that Duwayne,
Been there, didn't do it.
You ignored what I wrote (again). Why's this so difficult for you?
I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
including the right to live, and the right
to personal freedom/self determination?"
Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. Bu
you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
So please explain how babies are born bad. Explain how a baby is born
a terrorist.
<snip to end>
�R. L. Measures
<6bbb18b5-f17c-46d3...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 5:28=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
>
> <snip>
> > > My question to you was this:
> >
> > ** =A0been there done that Duwayne,
>
> Been there, didn't do it.
>
> You ignored what I wrote (again). Why's this so difficult for you?
>
> I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> including the right to live, and the right
> to personal freedom/self determination?"
>
> Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. Bu
> you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
>
> So please explain how babies are born bad. Explain how a baby is born
> a terrorist.
>
> <snip to end>
** bananas
Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 5:28=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
>
> > <snip>
> > > > My question to you was this:
>
> > > ** =A0been there done that Duwayne,
>
> > Been there, didn't do it.
>
> > You ignored what I wrote (again). Why's this so difficult for you?
>
> > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > including the right to live, and the right
> > to personal freedom/self determination?"
>
> > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. Bu
> > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
>
> > So please explain how babies are born bad. Explain how a baby is born
> > a terrorist.
>
> > <snip to end>
>
> ** bananas
Measures, you ignored the question (again).
I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
including the right to live, and the right to personal freedom/self
determination?"
Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. But
you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
So please explain how babies are born bad. Explain how a baby is born
a terrorist.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
�R. L. Measures
<f0a3b3a6-f3dd-4b6d...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:31=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <6bbb18b5-f17c-46d3-ad9b-403ee4e62...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 29, 5:28=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > My question to you was this:
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0been there done that Duwayne,
> >
> > > Been there, didn't do it.
> >
> > > You ignored what I wrote (again). =A0Why's this so difficult for you?
> >
> > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > > including the right to live, and the right
> > > to personal freedom/self determination?"
> >
> > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. =A0Bu
> > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =A0Explain how a baby is bor=
> n
> > > a terrorist.
> >
> > > <snip to end>
> >
> > ** =A0bananas
>
> Measures, you ignored the question (again).
>
> I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> including the right to live, and the right to personal freedom/self
> determination?"
>
> Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. But
> you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
>
> So please explain how babies are born bad. Explain how a baby is born
> a terrorist.
>
** nuts
dsharavi
�R. L. Measures
<e5f998cc-666d-49ea...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 5:33=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <3324d7c7-52c9-48f7-a171-b1ce8eb47...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 29, 9:01=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <a5370dd2-333c-4b11-9fb4-a9b04ad09...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 28, 8:05=3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <c6950144-d85b-4ebb-b1d1-10ddfc820...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 23, 1:07=3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Meas=
> ures) wr=3D
> > > ote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <5aef7f0f-3d65-44c7-ab1f-ebe867f93...@g3g2000pra.googlegroups=
> .com=3D
> > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 22, 10:06=3D3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D3D95R=
> . L. Mea=3D
> > > sures) w=3D3D
> > > > > rote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <ff6193c0-9987-429e-be01-4aa0e546e...@w31g2000prd.googleg=
> roup=3D
> > > s.co=3D3D
> > > > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 7:13=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D=
> 3D3D95R.=3D
> > > =A0L. Meas=3D3D
> > > > > ures) wr=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > > <9f6a6a74-ef8d-4116-9f6c-202746b3b...@a5g2000pre.goog=
> legr=3D
> > > oups=3D3D
> > > > > .com=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2:38=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=
> =3D3D3D3D=3D
> > > 3D3D95R.=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0L. Meas=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ures) wr=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > ote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does your answer suggest that you do *not* thin=
> k Is=3D
> > > rael=3D3D
> > > > > i so=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ldie=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > rs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (combatants) have the right to live?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0depends on who they kill and fo=
> r what=3D
> > > =A0reaso=3D3D
> > > > > n.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And what would those be?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3D3DA0killing attackers in self defense is =
> one.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you make the same allowances for Palestinians?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3D3DA0there are no exceptions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Okay. =3D3D3D3DA0Let's summarize:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) =3D3D3D3DA0You refused to acknowledge basic human ri=
> ghts u=3D
> > > ntil I=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0rewor=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ded th=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > question to say "for non-combatants"
> > > > > > > > > > > 2) =3D3D3D3DA0Then I asked if you were implying that Is=
> raeli =3D
> > > soldie=3D3D
> > > > > rs don=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > 't hav=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > basic human rights, since they are combatants.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0Combatants does not differentiate between t=
> hose w=3D
> > > ho do =3D3D
> > > > > bad th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ings f=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > rom
> > > > > > > > > > those who do good.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3) =3D3D3D3DA0So now you've added that it's okay to be =
> a comb=3D
> > > atant =3D3D
> > > > > if you=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0are
> > > > > > > > > > > "killing attackers in self defense"
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0agreed
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4) =3D3D3D3DA0And you added that there are "no exceptio=
> ns."
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > That begs the following question: "Do you allow that Pa=
> lest=3D
> > > inia=3D3D
> > > > > ns t=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > hat
> > > > > > > > > > > are fighting an occupying power, in self defense, still=
> hav=3D
> > > e ba=3D3D
> > > > > sic
> > > > > > > > > > > human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0I see nothing amiss with going after those =
> who co=3D
> > > mmitte=3D3D
> > > > > d prev=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ious
> > > > > > > > > > terrrorist acts that involved murder.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Measures, you ignored the question.
> >
> > > > > > > > > "Do you allow that Palestinians that are fighting an occupy=
> ing =3D
> > > powe=3D3D
> > > > > r,
> > > > > > > > > in self defense, still have basic human rights?"
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0____
> >
> > > > > > > You ignored the question -- again. =3D3DA0Why?
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0Israel would not be there if there were no terrorists i=
> n Gaza=3D
> > > .
> >
> > > > > Measures, you ignored the question. =3DA0Again. =3DA0Why?
> >
> > > > > Let's refresh your memory.
> >
> > > > > When I asked you if you support universal rights for all people you
> > > > > accused me of using that question as a "cover" for "bad" people. =
> =3DA0You
> > > > > called the question "indeterminate."
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0correct. =3DA0mixing the bad with the good makes the question=
> indeter=3D
> > > minate. =3DA0
> >
> > > My question to you was this:
> >
> > > 1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
> > > certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
> > > to personal freedom/self determination?
> >
> > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. =A0You
> > > say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > What people are *born* bad, Measures? =A0In your twisted, racist, mixed=
> -
> > > up mind, what races have babies that are *born* bad?
> >
> > > > > You refused to answer the question until it was modified to apply
> > > > > *only* to non-combatants.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0there are two kinds of combatants, defenders and agreessors.
> >
> > > But so far you have refused to allow that any combatants except
> > > Israelis retain their human =A0rights. =A0You've carved out a special
> > > exclusion for human rights based on ethnicity.
> >
> > ** =A0I wonder if Kaopectate works on logorrhea as well as diarrhea?
>
> Halevai, lol.
>
> Deborah
** if only
cheers D.
mir...@actcom.co.il
A week +++has gone by and you are still asking the same questions ,
Never mind that you rephrase the outside deffinitions, they are the
same !!! ,,,You are still showing everybody that you only Pretend to
care for Human rights , and that your only GOAL is to push your
hateful ideas forward, while trying to Glue this hatred to other
people, and make yourself look Good.
I have told you before ALL HUMANS have [in principle] the same rights,
Thus ALL BABIES should be born with the Same rights , but Alas , some
are born in richer homes , some are born in poor conditions ,, Some
have parents who are mature and ready to be nourishing parents. ,
while some have parents that are less mature. Some are born into
cultures where babies are more nourished as individuals and some are
born into cultures where they are more part of a group, and brought up
to be less individualistic.
Thus while Idealy they should have the same Rights , But in fact they
don`t have them from the moment they are born ,,, Now if you were a
real Human rights Follower , you would have gone to help in societies
and cultures where babies have less Cultural /economical rights from
the hour if birth...
. Are you doing something about That ???? no ? why not ? For some
weeks now you keep asking us if we believe all humans have the same
rights ? ,,,,,, But you never ask us if the children of Homeless
people in your country have the same rights as the Rich ones , you
never ask if children in Africa , have the same rights as those in
Sweden etc,,,,, NO !!!! because you are only Focused on One / Sorry
Two groups which you mention Time and again , ??????
mirjam
dsharavi
> Mr Duwaynea
> A week +++has gone by and you are still asking the same questions ,
> Never mind that you rephrase the outside deffinitions, they are the
> same !!! ,,,
A week? Duwayne has been asking the same rephrased and repasted
questions for half a year.
>You are still showing everybody that you only Pretend to
> care for Human rights , and that your only GOAL is to push your
> hateful ideas forward, while trying to Glue this hatred to other
> people, and make yourself look Good.
In addition to his limited ability to comprehend what he reads,
Duwyane suffers from a monstrously overpuffed ego.
> I have told you before ALL HUMANS have [in principle] the same rights,
> Thus ALL BABIES should be born with the Same rights , but Alas , some
> are born in richer homes , some are born in poor conditions ,, Some
> have parents who are mature and ready to be nourishing parents. ,
> while some have parents that are less mature. Some are born into
> cultures where babies are more nourished as individuals and some are
> born into cultures where they are more part of a group, and brought up
> to be less individualistic.
>
> Thus while Idealy they should have the same Rights , But in fact they
> don`t have them from the moment they are born ,,,
You're confusing Duwayne with facts beyond his ability to comprehend.
>Now if you were a
> real Human rights Follower , you would have gone to help in societies
> and cultures where babies have less Cultural /economical rights from
> the hour if birth...
> . Are you doing something about That ???? no ?
Here's the level of Duwayne's actions on behalf of human rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lUjhEHlh7s
>why not ? For some
> weeks now you keep asking us if we believe all humans have the same
> rights ? ,,,,,, But you never ask us if the children of Homeless
> people in your country have the same rights as the Rich ones , you
> never ask if children in Africa , have the same rights as those in
> Sweden etc,,,,, NO !!!! because you are only Focused on One / Sorry
> Two groups which you mention Time and again , ??????
> mirjam
Duwayne's not really interested in the children of the homeless on
America, or even in Columbia County. He just likes pestering Jews.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > > > But so far you have refused to allow that any combatants except
> > > > Israelis retain their human =A0rights. =A0You've carved out a special
> > > > exclusion for human rights based on ethnicity.
> > R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > **I wonder if Kaopectate works on logorrhea as well as diarrhea?
> dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Halevai, lol.
> > Deborah
On May 31, 4:08 am, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
> ** if only
As I said. Hope springs eternal, though.
> cheers D.
Backatcha, R.L.
Deborah
�R. L. Measures
<b3a742ac-b6d3-40aa...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
dsharavi <dsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > But so far you have refused to allow that any combatants except
> > > > > Israelis retain their human =3DA0rights. =3DA0You've carved out a s=
> pecial
> > > > > exclusion for human rights based on ethnicity.
>
> > > R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > **I wonder if Kaopectate works on logorrhea as well as diarrhea?
>
> > dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Halevai, lol.
> > > Deborah
>
> On May 31, 4:08 am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > ** =A0if only
>
> As I said. Hope springs eternal, though.
>
> > cheers D.
>
> Backatcha, R.L.
>
> Deborah
** There is little hope for those with a miswired logic unit.
Duwaynea Anderson
By "nuts" I assume you mean that you are unable to support you absurd
claim that the affirmation of basic human rights amounts to providing
"cover" for terrorists.
Duwaynea Anderson
> A week +++has gone by and you are still asking the same questions ,
It's been a helluva lot longer than a week, l'll buddy. It's been
going on all year.
> Never mind that you rephrase the outside deffinitions,
I've been referencing the basic human rights here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Deborah, Susan, and Measures have stoutly refused to agree with those
human rights. In fact, Measures is such a fanatic he thinks basic
human rights provide "cover" for terrorists!
How about you? Do you agree with the inalienable rights described at
this link?
> they are the
> same !!! ,,,You are still showing everybody that you only Pretend to
> care for Human rights , and that your only GOAL is to push your
> hateful ideas forward, while trying to Glue this hatred to other
> people, and make yourself look Good.
I don't know who is looking good, and who is looking bad.
But when you hang out with folks that refuse even to condemn genocide,
it can't be good.
Do you realize that Measures thinks support of the 1948 convention on
genocide reflects "hostility toward Jews?"
What sort of whacked-out fanatic says that sort of stuff?
�R. L. Measures
<df20f822-96ce-4513...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 1:38=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <f0a3b3a6-f3dd-4b6d-813f-05c23c803...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 30, 8:31=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <6bbb18b5-f17c-46d3-ad9b-403ee4e62...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 29, 5:28=3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > My question to you was this:
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0been there done that Duwayne,
> >
> > > > > Been there, didn't do it.
> >
> > > > > You ignored what I wrote (again). =3DA0Why's this so difficult for =
> you?
> >
> > > > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> > > > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > > > > including the right to live, and the right
> > > > > to personal freedom/self determination?"
> >
> > > > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. =3D=
> A0Bu
> > > > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =3DA0Explain how a baby =
> is bor=3D
> > > n
> > > > > a terrorist.
> >
> > > > > <snip to end>
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0bananas
> >
> > > Measures, you ignored the question (again).
> >
> > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > > including the right to live, and the right to personal freedom/self
> > > determination?"
> >
> > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. =A0But
> > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =A0Explain how a baby is bor=
> n
> > > a terrorist.
> >
> > ** =A0nuts
>
> By "nuts" I assume you mean that you are unable to support you absurd
> claim that the affirmation of basic human rights amounts to providing
> "cover" for terrorists.
>
** no
Duwaynea Anderson
Well, then, I'd like to see you provide a cogent argument to support
your assertion that, by supporting the 1948 convention on genocide,
I'm demonstrating "hostility toward Jews."
Personally, you know, I think it's anti-Semitic of you to suggest that
supporting laws against genocide is "hostile" toward Jews. I think
that when you try to hijack the phrase "anti-Semitic" like that you
are showing horrible disregard for the memory of Jews slaughtered by
those who committed genocide.
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
�R. L. Measures
<23f25034-2940-4d84...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:07=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <df20f822-96ce-4513-bcbd-4bf0d8bf3...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 31, 1:38=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <f0a3b3a6-f3dd-4b6d-813f-05c23c803...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 30, 8:31=3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <6bbb18b5-f17c-46d3-ad9b-403ee4e62...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com=
> >,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 29, 5:28=3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Meas=
> ures) wr=3D
> > > ote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > My question to you was this:
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0been there done that Duwayne,
> >
> > > > > > > Been there, didn't do it.
> >
> > > > > > > You ignored what I wrote (again). =3D3DA0Why's this so difficul=
> t for =3D
> > > you?
> >
> > > > > > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (inclu=
> ding
> > > > > > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > > > > > > including the right to live, and the right
> > > > > > > to personal freedom/self determination?"
> >
> > > > > > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with.=
> =3D3D=3D
> > > A0Bu
> > > > > > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > > > > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =3D3DA0Explain how a=
> baby =3D
> > > is bor=3D3D
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > a terrorist.
> >
> > > > > > > <snip to end>
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0bananas
> >
> > > > > Measures, you ignored the question (again).
> >
> > > > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (including
> > > > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > > > > including the right to live, and the right to personal freedom/self
> > > > > determination?"
> >
> > > > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with. =3D=
> A0But
> > > > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =3DA0Explain how a baby =
> is bor=3D
> > > n
> > > > > a terrorist.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0nuts
> >
> > > By "nuts" I assume you mean that you are unable to support you absurd
> > > claim that the affirmation of basic human rights amounts to providing
> > > "cover" for terrorists.
> >
> > ** =A0no
>
> Well, then, I'd like to see you provide a cogent argument to support
> your assertion that, by supporting the 1948 convention on genocide,
> I'm demonstrating "hostility toward Jews."
>
> Personally, you know, I think it's anti-Semitic of you to suggest that
> supporting laws against genocide is "hostile" toward Jews. I think
> that when you try to hijack the phrase "anti-Semitic" like that you
> are showing horrible disregard for the memory of Jews slaughtered by
> those who committed genocide.
>
** meshuggah
Duwaynea Anderson
No effective response again?
Seriously, Measures. I think it's anti-Semitic of you to suggest that
supporting laws against genocide is "hostile" toward Jews. I think
that when you try to hijack the phrase "anti-Semitic" like that you
are showing horrible disregard for the memory of Jews slaughtered by
those who committed genocide.
Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
�R. L. Measures
<4d7adca1-a5ac-4f55...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:22=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <23f25034-2940-4d84-bb33-e6380af2e...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 5:07=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <df20f822-96ce-4513-bcbd-4bf0d8bf3...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 31, 1:38=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <f0a3b3a6-f3dd-4b6d-813f-05c23c803...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 30, 8:31=3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D95R. L. Meas=
> ures) wr=3D
> > > ote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <6bbb18b5-f17c-46d3-ad9b-403ee4e62...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups=
> .com=3D
> > > >,
> >
> > > > > > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On May 29, 5:28=3D3D3D3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D3D3D3D95R.=
> L. Meas=3D
> > > ures) wr=3D3D
> > > > > ote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> >
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > My question to you was this:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3D3DA0been there done that Duwayne,
> >
> > > > > > > > > Been there, didn't do it.
> >
> > > > > > > > > You ignored what I wrote (again). =3D3D3DA0Why's this so di=
> fficul=3D
> > > t for =3D3D
> > > > > you?
> >
> > > > > > > > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (i=
> nclu=3D
> > > ding
> > > > > > > > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rig=
> hts,
> > > > > > > > > including the right to live, and the right
> > > > > > > > > to personal freedom/self determination?"
> >
> > > > > > > > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* w=
> ith.=3D
> > > =A0=3D3D3D=3D3D
> > > > > A0Bu
> > > > > > > > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > > > > > > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =3D3D3DA0Explain=
> how a=3D
> > > =A0baby =3D3D
> > > > > is bor=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > a terrorist.
> >
> > > > > > > > > <snip to end>
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3D3DA0bananas
> >
> > > > > > > Measures, you ignored the question (again).
> >
> > > > > > > I offered the eminently simple question: "Are all people (inclu=
> ding
> > > > > > > Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with certain inalienable rights,
> > > > > > > including the right to live, and the right to personal freedom/=
> self
> > > > > > > determination?"
> >
> > > > > > > Note that this question is about rights people are *born* with.=
> =3D3D=3D
> > > A0But
> > > > > > > you say that question mixes the "bad with the good."
> >
> > > > > > > So please explain how babies are born bad. =3D3DA0Explain how a=
> baby =3D
> > > is bor=3D3D
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > a terrorist.
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0nuts
> >
> > > > > By "nuts" I assume you mean that you are unable to support you absu=
> rd
> > > > > claim that the affirmation of basic human rights amounts to providi=
> ng
> > > > > "cover" for terrorists.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0no
> >
> > > Well, then, I'd like to see you provide a cogent argument to support
> > > your assertion that, by supporting the 1948 convention on genocide,
> > > I'm demonstrating "hostility toward Jews."
> >
> > > Personally, you know, I think it's anti-Semitic of you to suggest that
> > > supporting laws against genocide is "hostile" toward Jews. =A0I think
> > > that when you try to hijack the phrase "anti-Semitic" like that you
> > > are showing horrible disregard for the memory of Jews slaughtered by
> > > those who committed genocide.
> >
> > ** =A0meshuggah
>
> No effective response again?
>
> Seriously, Measures. I think it's anti-Semitic of you to suggest that
> supporting laws against genocide is "hostile" toward Jews. I think
> that when you try to hijack the phrase "anti-Semitic" like that you
> are showing horrible disregard for the memory of Jews slaughtered by
> those who committed genocide.
>
> Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
>
** Not in every case. The United States wisely ended WW-II by beginning
a program of genociding Japanese civilians to serve as a wake up call to
Japanese Emperor Hirohito. This began in earnest in early 1945 with the
napalm firebomb raids on Tokyo. One firebomb raid on the night of 9�10
March by 279 B-29 bombers killed more people than were killed by either
of the subsequent nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At this
point the Emperor woke up and stopped the war.
Michael Ejercito
To do that would require me to believe that the Lord God Almighty
is a criminal.
It is NOT wrong when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT
to commit genocide when God tells you to do so.
Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
> In article
<snip>
> > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
>
> ** Not in every case.
Wow! Measures finally comes clean.
I suspected you think there are excuses for genocide, but I never
really thought you'd blurt it out like that.
Thanks for the honest -- if deplorable -- answer.
The United States wisely ended WW-II by beginning
> a program of genociding Japanese civilians to serve as a wake up call to
> Japanese Emperor Hirohito. This began in earnest in early 1945 with the
> napalm firebomb raids on Tokyo. One firebomb raid on the night of 910
> March by 279 B-29 bombers killed more people than were killed by either
> of the subsequent nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At this
> point the Emperor woke up and stopped the war.
>
> --
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
>
> No.
>
> To do that would require me to believe that the Lord God Almighty
> is a criminal.
>
> It is NOT wrong when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT
> to commit genocide when God tells you to do so.
Well, we have another shining example of why religious extremists are
such a danger to the world.
Let's see. Ruffle, ruffle. Okay here is a summary so far. With
regard to the question "Do you universally and unconditionally condemn
genocide as a crime against humanity" here are the answers:
1) R. L. Measures, "Not in every case."
2) Michael Ejercito, "... NOT .... when God orders genocide; in fact,
it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
These two shining examples of ethics/morality made those astounding
statements in the thread "Now kill all the boys," on June 2, 2009.
How amazing the evil that religious fanaticism wreaks on the hearts of
men.
>
> Michael- Hide quoted text -
�R. L. Measures
<c932c8af-7850-4e46...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 7:24=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
>
> <snip>
> > > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
> >
> > ** =A0Not in every case.
>
> Wow! Measures finally comes clean.
>
> I suspected you think there are excuses for genocide, but I never
> really thought you'd blurt it out like that.
>
> Thanks for the honest -- if deplorable -- answer.
>
** Gen George Patton was for damn sure right Duwayne.
>
>
>
> =A0The United States wisely ended WW-II by beginning
> > a program of genociding Japanese civilians to serve as a wake up call to
> > Japanese Emperor Hirohito. =A0This began in earnest in early 1945 with th=
> e
> > napalm firebomb raids on Tokyo. =A0One firebomb raid on the night of 9=AD=
> 10
> > March by 279 B-29 bombers killed more people =A0than were killed by eithe=
> r
> > of the subsequent nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. =A0At t=
> his
> > point the Emperor woke up and stopped the war.
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
>
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 7:24=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
>
> > <snip>
> > > > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > > > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
>
> > > ** =A0Not in every case.
>
> > Wow! Measures finally comes clean.
>
> > I suspected you think there are excuses for genocide, but I never
> > really thought you'd blurt it out like that.
>
> > Thanks for the honest -- if deplorable -- answer.
>
> ** Gen George Patton was for damn sure right Duwayne.
Genocide is never "damn sure right" Measures.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0The United States wisely ended WW-II by beginning
> > > a program of genociding Japanese civilians to serve as a wake up call to
> > > Japanese Emperor Hirohito. =A0This began in earnest in early 1945 with th=
> > e
> > > napalm firebomb raids on Tokyo. =A0One firebomb raid on the night of 9=AD=
> > 10
> > > March by 279 B-29 bombers killed more people =A0than were killed by eithe=
> > r
> > > of the subsequent nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. =A0At t=
> > his
> > > point the Emperor woke up and stopped the war.
>
> > > --
> > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
>
> - Show quoted text -
If god told you to commit genocide, would you do it?
David?
R. L. Measures?
Susan?
Deborah?
Anyone? If god told you to commit genocide, would you do it?
If god commanded you to take a sword and personally march through a
camp of children, prisoners of war, un-armed, and kill them.... would
you do it?
�R. L. Measures
<6cb7cc98-1a4f-4e40...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:10=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <c932c8af-7850-4e46-b8ca-beba3e8ce...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 2, 7:24=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > > > > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Not in every case.
> >
> > > Wow! =A0Measures finally comes clean.
> >
> > > I suspected you think there are excuses for genocide, but I never
> > > really thought you'd blurt it out like that.
> >
> > > Thanks for the honest -- if deplorable -- answer.
> >
> > ** =A0Gen George Patton was for damn sure right Duwayne. =A0
>
> Genocide is never "damn sure right" Measures.
>
** "War is hell."- General George Patton
wrong guy, it was General Sherman. sorry
Duwaynea Anderson
>
>
>
>
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 8:10=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <c932c8af-7850-4e46-b8ca-beba3e8ce...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 2, 7:24=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > In article
>
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > > > > > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
>
> > > > > ** =3DA0Not in every case.
>
> > > > Wow! =A0Measures finally comes clean.
>
> > > > I suspected you think there are excuses for genocide, but I never
> > > > really thought you'd blurt it out like that.
>
> > > > Thanks for the honest -- if deplorable -- answer.
>
> > > ** =A0Gen George Patton was for damn sure right Duwayne. =A0
>
> > Genocide is never "damn sure right" Measures.
>
> ** "War is hell."- General George Patton
And genocide is never "damn sure right," Measures.
>
> wrong guy, it was General Sherman. sorry
>
> --
mir...@actcom.co.il
these are irational questions , one can not ask , because there is no
answer ,,
But i have a rational story for , which i would like you to consider ,
one day i drove out of a gaz station , i had a very small car , A Huge
car entered the Exit , and i suddenly realized a worjer of the
station , was between me and that Huge car ,
in less than a minute i had to choose to pull to the right and some
how get a smaller impact from that car ,, or pull to the left ,
probably be hit by that car , but also maybe save the worker from
geting hit by that car ,,
I know what i chose , WHEN IT HAPPENED , Are you sure that if you
decided such a thing Now on Dry ,,,,,,not really seeing that bih
car ,,,, that you will choose the same choice you claimed to
do ,,,,,,,
You don`t know such things until they really Are happening , just
please stop with this questions that you write just to annoy people .
mirjam
>
> David?
> R. L. Measures?
> Susan?
> Deborah?
>
dsharavi
black-and-white mentality like Duwayne's to handle.
> If my Grandmother had wheels ?would she be a car ?
<g>
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
> these are irational questions , one can not ask , because there is no
> answer ,,
The question is this: "If god commanded you to commit genocide, would
you do it?"
Now, it seems that you believe in god.
And at least one of you fruitcakes thinks god might command someone to
commit genocide. Michael Ejercito wrote " in fact, it is wrong NOT to
commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
It seems you are just *saying* the question has no answer because you
think the answer is "yes," but you don't want to look like a flaming
fanatic (like Michael Ejercito) by saying so in public.
I think the answer is perfectly clear. If god told me to commit
genocide I'd tell him "no." If he said he'd send me to hell if I
didn't commit genocide I'd still say "no."
So why won't you and Deborah say no?
> But i have a rational story for , which i would like you to consider ,
> one day i drove out of a gaz station , i had a very small car , A Huge
> car entered the Exit , and i suddenly realized a worjer of the
> station , was between me and that Huge car ,
> in less than a minute i had to choose to pull to the right and some
> how get a smaller impact from that car ,, or pull to the left ,
> probably be hit by that car , but also maybe save the worker from
> geting hit by that car ,,
> I know what i chose , WHEN IT HAPPENED , Are you sure that if you
> decided such a thing Now on Dry ,,,,,,not really seeing that bih
> car ,,,, that you will choose the same choice you claimed to
> do ,,,,,,,
> You don`t know such things until they really Are happening , just
> please stop with this questions that you write just to annoy people .
> mirjam
If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck himself.
How about you?
Duwaynea Anderson
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see Deborah is still ignoring the question.
Question: If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
dsharavi
On Jun 5, 10:56 am, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck himself.
And if your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
her gymnastic meets, you'd tell him to fuck himself, and start
boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
that is.)
>>If my Grandmother had wheels ?would she be a car ?
If Duwayne had a fully functional brain, would he be Duwayne?
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
Deborah, you keep ignoring this question.
If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
Why do religious fanatics have such a difficult time with that
question? Is it that you want to say "yes," but you know it'll make
you look like a fanatic?
Since you apparently would commit genocide for your god, would you
explain how you are fundamentally any different from the 911
terrorists, who were also willing to murder innocent people for their
god?
>
> >>If my Grandmother had wheels ?would she be a car ?
>
> If Duwayne had a fully functional brain, would he be Duwayne?
>
> Deborah- Hide quoted text -
dsharavi
On Jun 5, 10:56 am, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>I see Deborah is still ignoring the question.
Duwayne is lying. The question has been answered. Twice.
>Question: If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
You've said that if your god told you to commit genocide, Duwayne,
you'd "tell him to go fuck himself." Here's the question you've been
ignoring:
If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
her gymnastic meets, would tell him to fuck himself, and start
boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been, that is.)
Well, Duwayne?
Deborah
NefeshBarYochai
Deb sometimes you crack me up. You're funny. :-)
dsharavi
>>>>But i have a rational story for , which i would like you to consider ,
>>>>one day i drove out of a gaz station , i had a very small car , A Huge
>>>>car entered the Exit , and i suddenly realized a worjer of the
>>>>station , was between me and that Huge car ,
>>>>in less than a minute i had to choose to pull to the right and some
>>>>how get a smaller impact from that car ,, or pull to the left ,
>>>>probably be hit by that car , but also maybe save the worker from
>>>>geting hit by that car ,,
>>>>I know what i chose , WHEN IT HAPPENED , Are you sure that if you
>>>>decided such a thing Now on Dry ,,,,,,not really seeing that bih
>>>>car ,,,, that you will choose the same choice you claimed to
>>>>do ,,,,,,,
>>>>You don`t know such things until they really Are happening , just
>>>>please stop with this questions that you write just to annoy people .
>>>>mirjam
>
>>>If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck himself.
>
>>her gymnastic meets, you'd tell him to fuck himself, and start
>>boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
>>that is.)
>
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Deborah, you keep ignoring this question.
>If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
You're lying again, Duwaune. I've already answered the question. At
least twice. Because you're too dense to comprehend it doesn't mean I
never answered. The question you've been ignoring is:
If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
that is--or doing it.)
>Why do religious fanatics have such a difficult time with that
>question? Is it that you want to say "yes," but you know it'll make
>you look like a fanatic?
Duwayne's double reference to religious fantatics must raise a smile
or two, when one considers the the decade or so which Duwayne spent
dragging his family from state to state in the interests of peddling
his religion.
So, Duwayne, here's the question you've been ignoring:
If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
that is--or doing it.)
Deborah
dsharavi
On Jun 5, 12:56 pm, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>Deb sometimes you crack me up. You're funny. :-)
Why, thanks, Tek. I'm surprised you haven't gotten in on this thread
yet. Duwayne is a natural subject for one of your poems. You know the
poems I mean. <g>
Deborah
TDNY
"dsharavi" <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a33ca263-abb8-4ee0...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Debbie, Duwayne is right, you did not answer the question.
A simple yes or no, would suffice.
If your God commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
Is it really that hard, to look inside yourself, and answer the question,
without tricks, or personal attacks.
It seems to me, remembering the Holy Bible, that there were numerous,
God ordered acts of genocide in the bible.
dsharavi
> "dsharavi" <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Er, yes, I did, Torres, several times.
> A simple yes or no, would suffice.
No, it doesn't, but Duwayne is too dense to comprehend anything beyond
simple black and white answers.
> If your God commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
> Is it really that hard, to look inside yourself, and answer the question,
> without tricks, or personal attacks.
Personal attacks like the ones Duwayne indulges in? Tit for tat,
Torres. To answer YOUR question: I don't believe Gd would give me such
an order, thus the question is moot, as well as stupid.
> It seems to me, remembering the Holy Bible, that there were numerous,
> God ordered acts of genocide in the bible.
There weren't. On the few occasions of massive deaths -- Israelites in
the wilderness, Egypt's firstborn, most of life on Earth -- Gd took
care of those himself.
Deborah
TDNY
Deborah
I don't know about that Debbie, it seems to me, that individuals in the
Christian Bible,
were ordered by someone they felt was 'God' to commit mass murder=genocide.
But I have to back and read up on that, because it has been a long time
since,
I have read the Bible.
I will look it up.
I remember, from my Sunday School teachers that God had commanded mass
murder,
because he felt that certain people turned their backs on him, didn't
worship him properly or enough,
or something.
I am sure Bellevue hospital, psychiatric ward,
has some patients, that feel God is talking to them
and commanding them as well.
NYC has the sense to lock them up, before they can harm themselves and
others.
I will go pull out the Bible and look up God and genocides, then I'll get
back to you.
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jun-2009, "TDNY" <TD...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Debbie, Duwayne is right, you did not answer the question.
Anonymous coward, DuWaynea is lying.
He didn't "ask questions" so much as project his own
bigotry onto those who exposed it. He got caught out
spewing Jew-hatred, and, rather than answer for it,
starting pretending that it was Jews, & not hismelf,
who needed to be asked "questions" such as those.
He also lies about the questions ever having been
answered. He lies, start to finish.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Jun-2009, dsharavi <dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:06�pm, "TDNY" <T...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > Debbie, Duwayne is right, you did not answer the question.
>
> Er, yes, I did, Torres,
Oh, wow - that makes sense.
> several times.
Of course.
And DuWaynea lies about *that*, too.
Susan
Duwaynea Anderson
What was your answer to this question:
If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
> >Question: If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
>
> You've said that if your god told you to commit genocide, Duwayne,
> you'd "tell him to go fuck himself."
You said you answered that question, Deborah. Okay, what was your
answer?
BTW, I'm an atheist, and don't have any gods. But if your evil god
(or anyone else's) told me to commit genocide, I would happily tell
your diety to go fuck himself.
How about you?
If you thought your god was telling you to commit genocide, would you
have the courage to tell your evil god no, or would you pick up your
machine gun and start killing people?
You keep dodging that question. By dodging it you make it look as if
you really would kill innocent people if you thought your god wanted
you to.
And in that regard I fail to distinguish any difference between you
and any other common terrorists that thinks it’s okay to kill innocent
people.
> Here's the question you've been
> ignoring:
> If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
> her gymnastic meets, would tell him to fuck himself, and start
> boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been, that is.)
Deborah, it's not possible to "stop" doing something that one has
never done.
But you didn't say it's impossible for your god to not command you to
commit genocide. You simply said it was unlikely. But however
unlikely, it's still a possibility (as opposed to your disturbed
sexual example).
So, since you allow that it is *possible* for your evil god to ask his/
her/its followers to commit genocide, the question to you is entirely
appropriate:
If your god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
When you dodge the question, or ignore it, and when you get so
flustered you start talking about "snatches" and "wanking" it becomes
pretty clear that your answer is "yes." You would, in fact, murder
innocent people if your evil god told you to.
That's what makes religious fanatics like you so dangerous. Given the
circumstances they will strap bombs to their bodies and blow people to
smithereens, or they'll start wars based on lies, or even drop nuclear
bombs. All on the mistaken assumption that their evil actions are
somehow forgiven because their evil god told them to do it.
> Well, Duwayne?
So, you gonna take that class on logic?
May I suggest one on ethics, too?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> So, Duwayne, here's the question you've been ignoring:
> If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
> her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
> boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
> that is--or doing it.)
Are you still confused about the impossibility of "stopping" something
that's never been done?
But you never said it was "impossible" for your god to ask you to
commit genocide. You never said it's something that he/she/it would
absolutely never do. You just said it was unlikely.
But something that's unlikely is still possible (unlike the bogus
sexual fantasy that you tried to make into a question).
So, since it's "possible" that you god might ask you to commit
genocide, I think you should explain whether or not you would obey
your evil god.
If your god told you to pick up a hatchet and kill all the boys that
had recently been taken prisoners of war in a battle, would you do it?
Of course there's little question regarding the answer to that
question. Of course you would. That's why you're trying so hard to
dodge and ignore the question. On the one hand you don't want to piss
off this evil god you worship by saying you might disobey a direct
commandment, but on the other hand you don't want to look like a
raving religious fanatic -- which you are.
It's a conundrum. Should you piss off god, or should you give
yourself away?
<snip to end>
dsharavi
wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:01 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > So, Duwayne, here's the question you've been ignoring:
> > If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
> > her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
> > boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
> > that is--or doing it.)
>
> Are you still confused about the impossibility of "stopping" something
> that's never been done?
>
> But you never said it was "impossible" for your god to ask you to
> commit genocide. You never said it's something that he/she/it would
> absolutely never do. You just said it was unlikely.
>
> But something that's unlikely is still possible (unlike the bogus
> sexual fantasy that you tried to make into a question).
Um, no one mentioned any sexual fantasy - until you just did,
Duwayne.
> It's a conundrum. Should you piss off god, or should you give
> yourself away?
Well, for you, it certainly is, but the conundrum is should you give
yourself away and piss off Laura, Christopher, Jacob, and Michael, or
should you just keep going as you are, with what is beginning to
appear less your fantasy, and more the actual nature of your
relationship with Caroline. A conundrum indeed, but nothing an ex-
religionmonger like yourself couldn't handle.
Deborah
> <snip to end>
�R. L. Measures
<47709d89-4d35-4fa8...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 5:16=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <6cb7cc98-1a4f-4e40-829e-eca373654...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 2, 8:10=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <c932c8af-7850-4e46-b8ca-beba3e8ce...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 2, 7:24=3D3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wro=
> te:
> > > > > > In article
> >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivoca=
> lly
> > > > > > > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
> >
> > > > > > ** =3D3DA0Not in every case.
> >
> > > > > Wow! =3DA0Measures finally comes clean.
> >
> > > > > I suspected you think there are excuses for genocide, but I never
> > > > > really thought you'd blurt it out like that.
> >
> > > > > Thanks for the honest -- if deplorable -- answer.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0Gen George Patton was for damn sure right Duwayne. =3DA0
> >
> > > Genocide is never "damn sure right" Measures.
> >
> > ** =A0"War is hell."- General George Patton
>
> And genocide is never "damn sure right," Measures.
>
** I never said it was Duwayne. I said it was used to ultimately save
lives in the war with Japan.
mir...@actcom.co.il
> Good story, mirjam, it's a shame that it's too complex for a simple
> black-and-white mentality like Duwayne's to handle.
>
> > If my Grandmother had wheels ?would she be a car ?
>
mirjam
mir...@actcom.co.il
> > Mr Duwayneas
> > these are irational questions , one can not ask , because there is no
> > answer ,,
>
> The question is this: "If god commanded you to commit genocide, would
> you do it?"
moment , when you have to act on the spot , and know that your
reaction or non action will have results !!!!
Until that moment you can`t answer that so called question, which pure
RHETHORICAL . ALAS , Life isn`t a debating club, as some of you seem
to imagine.
> Now, it seems that you believe in god.
As a Loud Claimer of Human rights believer , you should know that
matters of belief or non belief are very intimate and personal , and
that each person has the Right to his/her own beliefs.
>
> And at least one of you fruitcakes
Calling a Believer by an unkind insulting name , is against Human Free
right for freedom of thoughts and belief.
> It seems you are just *saying* the question has no answer
You may think what you want , why can`t you respect the plainfact that
peolple write what they mean. I really know that this questions have
no answer. Some questions in life has no answer. Things happen and you
don`t know why.
> because you think the answer is "yes,"
You would like me to think something that will serve your strange
claims ?
Sorry i told you Some questions have NO answers .
>but you don't want to look like a flaming
> fanatic (like Michael Ejercito) by saying so in public.
Interesting that a person like you whose posts are Filled with Fanatic
Hatred to Jews and Israel , calls anybody else fanatic , I respect
Michael`s right to have his own opinions.
> I think the answer is perfectly clear. If god told me to commit
> genocide I'd tell him "no." If he said he'd send me to hell if I
> didn't commit genocide I'd still say "no."
Mr Duwaynea, you probably lead a very easy life, and you are mixing
up a load of Theological ideas with Political and xhenophobic ideas ,
By the way , the idea of a God Sending people to Hell , doesn`t apply
to Jews , this is a Complete Christian Thelogical Thing....
> > do ,,,,,,,
> > You don`t know such things until they really Are happening , just
> > please stop with this questions that you write just to annoy people .
> > mirjam
>
> If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck himself.
And how is
this is related to my story about the Gaz Station accident ?
mirjam
mir...@actcom.co.il
> answered. He lies, start to finish.
>
> Susan
Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to Bashing
the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
Proffessor Hofstadter , had some marvelous articles about these kinds
of questions ,,,
mirjam
Jewdas
The many survivors of the victims of Jewish assassinations and other
murders have some good questions for you and your Bullshit Professor.
Try these survivors,
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > He also lies about the questions ever having been
> > answered. He lies, start to finish.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
> they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
> Bashing
> the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
>
Also because the answer given showed him up for the lying
hatemonger he is, rather than knuckled under to his projecting
said bigotry onto his exposer.
> Proffessor Hofstadter , had some marvelous articles about these kinds
> of questions ,,,
I always wish I could get paid for pointing out the obvious :-)
Susan
Majd al-Din
> On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
>
>>> He also lies about the questions ever having been
>>> answered. He lies, start to finish.
>>>
>>> Susan
>> Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
>> Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
>> they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
>
> has been proven right. He started on me at the very beginning
> of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
It really burns your ass that he is 100% correct.
>
>> Bashing
>> the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
>>
> Also because the answer given showed him up for the lying
> hatemonger he is, rather than knuckled under to his projecting
> said bigotry onto his exposer.
>
>> Proffessor Hofstadter , had some marvelous articles about these kinds
>> of questions ,,,
>
> I always wish I could get paid for pointing out the obvious :-)
>
> Susan
You obviously would starve to death as you are definitely mentally bankrupt.
�R. L. Measures
** He's too obvious to warrent extra pay Susan.
mir...@actcom.co.il
> murders have some good questions for you and your Bullshit Professor.
===================
Douglas Hofstadter is College Professor of Cognitive Science and
Computer Science at Indiana University, where he also directs the
Fluid Analogies Research Group, nicknamed “FARG”, at the Center for
Research on Concepts and Cognition. For roughly 25 years, the
FARGonauts have been making computational models of our human concepts
and categories, the premise being that if and when these mini-concepts
achieve the holy grail of “fluidity”, creative analogy-making will be
an outcome. Progress has been made, but there is still far to go (see
Fluid Concepts & Creative Analogies).
Hofstadter’s interests concerning the human mind are varied, ranging
from errors as a window on the mind (see “To Err is Human; To Study
Error-making is Cognitive Science”) to the mechanisms of creativity to
the nature of consciousness (see I Am a Strange Loop and The Mind’s
I). Currently his most active goal is to reveal how analogy-making
lies at the base of all human thought (see “Analogy as the Core of
Cognition” and hopefully, in a couple of years, Toward the Roots of
Thought).
Hofstadter has a lifelong love for languages, and has written a tome
about translation, analogies, constraints, and creativity (Le Ton beau
de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language), plus translated many
poems and two novels into English – one novel in verse (Pushkin’s
Eugene Onegin) and one in prose (Françoise Sagan’s La Chamade,
anagrammatically titled in English That Mad Ache). He has also spent
much time doing art and music (see Ambigrammi).
From 1981 to 1983, taking over from Martin Gardner’s incomparable
“Mathematical Games” column, Hofstadter wrote the free-ranging
“Metamagical Themas” column for Scientific American, from which a book
of that title was later created.
Hofstadter received his doctorate in physics from the University of
Oregon in 1975, and his thesis project led him to discover that
crystal electrons in magnetic fields have a beautiful self-similar
energy spectrum, the graph of which has since been dubbed the
“Hofstadter butterfly”. A couple of decades after his Ph.D., he
started avidly exploring the astonishing role played by irrational
analogical leaps in progress in physics, and he plans eventually to
write a book on the topic.
In the early 1960’s, Douglas Hofstadter majored in mathematics at
Stanford, and it was his passion for number theory and logic that led
him eventually to writing the book for which he is best known, Gödel,
Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. Later in life, he discovered a
latent love for geometries of many types, and a special delight in the
lowly Euclidean triangle. Here, too, a book may one day come out,
focused on the discovery process in mathematics. Last but not least is
Hofstadter’s passion for making abstract-seeming mathematical ideas,
such as group theory and Galois theory, visualizable and very down-to-
earth.
The key lodestars that constantly guide what Hofstadter himself
produces and that determine what he savors in others’ work are:
simplicity, clarity, structural elegance, and a relentless attempt to
understand and to explain subtle ideas in terms that are as concrete
and as elementary as possible.
Although Douglas Hofstadter is nominally associated with a few
departments at Indiana University, he is actually left pretty much
alone to pursue his multifarious interests, which he does with
alacrity, celerity, vim, vigor, and vitality. Hofstadter’s own way of
characterizing his personal style and his personal goals runs as
follows: “perpetually in search of beauty.”
Facilities
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, 510 North Fess Avenue,
Bloomington, Indiana 47408-3822
Representative Publications
>
>
dsharavi
>>>these are irational questions , one can not ask , because there is no
>>>answer ,,
>>The question is this: "If god commanded you to commit genocide, would
>>you do it?"
On Jun 5, 9:01 pm, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
>Mr Duwaynea
>As i told you , some questions can`t be answered until the REAL life
>moment , when you have to act on the spot , and know that your
>reaction or non action will have results !!!!
>Until that moment you can`t answer that so called question, which pure
>RHETHORICAL . ALAS , Life isn`t a debating club, as some of you seem
>to imagine.
It certainly seems a part of a debating club, albeit a low-level one,
when the same sophmoric question is repetitiously posed, in various
permutations. It seems the asker who keeps repeating it simply can't
get it through his head how utterly silly his question is. The subject
of high school natterings.
What could one do if Duwaune's god "commanded you to commit genocide"?
There are several options: 1) Fall on your face and laugh; 2) Make a
deal for lots of riches (not a good option); 3) Run and hide; 4)
Protest your general inadequacy for the task (and reference a physical
infirmity, like stuttering); or 5) Respectfully suggest he get someone
else for the job; for instance, himself. All are tried and valid
responses, even though none of those who so responded was "commanded
to commit genocide".
There's also the option of seeing a shrink, because anyone who thinks
Duwyane's god would appear and command one to "commit genocide" is
obviously not playing with a full deck. Ahmadinutjob of Iran comes to
mind.
>>Now, it seems that you believe in god.
>As a Loud Claimer of Human rights believer , you should know that
>matters of belief or non belief are very intimate and personal , and
>that each person has the Right to his/her own beliefs.
I doubt Duwayne would understand the joke "Two Jews, three opinions"
-- and that it's not entirely a joke.
>>And at least one of you fruitcakes
>Calling a Believer by an unkind insulting name, is against Human Free
>right for freedom of thoughts and belief.
Health to you, mirjam.
>>It seems you are just *saying* the question has no answer
>You may think what you want , why can`t you respect the plainfact that
>peolple write what they mean. I really know that this questions have
>no answer. Some questions in life has no answer. Things happen and you
>don`t know why.
>>because you think the answer is "yes,"
This must be Duwayne's dogmatic missionizing streak again. Duwayne,
with his black-and-white mentality, preconceives the answer to this
utterly ludicrous question to be to be "I'd tell god to fuck off". I
don't think I'd care to invite any supernatural being to do that, but,
in any event, Duwayne's question is moot, since Gd wouldn't command
one to commit genocide. Duwayne's ex-Gawd of Luv might, though.
Ahmadinutjob, definitely.
>You would like me to think something that will serve your strange
>claims ?
>Sorry i told you Some questions have NO answers .
That's one of Duwayne's major problems; his black-and-white mentality
allows for no gradations of grey.
>>but you don't want to look like a flaming
>>fanatic (like Michael Ejercito) by saying so in public.
>Interesting that a person like you whose posts are Filled with Fanatic
>Hatred to Jews and Israel , calls anybody else fanatic , I respect
>Michael`s right to have his own opinions.
>>I think the answer is perfectly clear. If god told me to commit
>>genocide I'd tell him "no." If he said he'd send me to hell if I
>>didn't commit genocide I'd still say "no."
>Mr Duwaynea, you probably lead a very easy life, and you are mixing
>up a load of Theological ideas with Political and xhenophobic ideas ,
>By the way , the idea of a God Sending people to Hell , doesn`t apply
>to Jews , this is a Complete Christian Thelogical Thing....
I was going to say that, if going to hell was the penalty for refusing
Duwayne's god's command to commit genocide, then, sure, no problem,
I'll go to hell. But you beat me to it. <smirk>
>>>You don`t know such things until they really Are happening , just
>>>please stop with this questions that you write just to annoy people .
>>>mirjam
I don't think he's trying to annoy, so much as he's trying to
reinforce his decision to severe himself from his church. He simply
doesn't understand that if he needs his decision reinforced, he should
go to his fellow (former fellow?) Xians. He's not likely to get it
from people who, when two decide to build a shul, they build three:
"One for you, one for me, and we can both boycott that SOB on the
hill." Duwayne probably wouldn't get that, any more than he would
understand "Two Jews, three opinions".
>>If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck himself.
>
>And how is
>this is related to my story about the Gaz Station accident ?
>mirjam
It isn't, of course. It's Duwayne listening to the sound of his own
opinions, and refusing to consider those others--or that others'
opinions might not necessarily coincide with his own. Then, too,
there's his lack of consideration for dissenting opinions stemming
from those who aren't men. In case you hadn't noticed, he's a bit of a
sexist, too.
Deborah
dsharavi
Al lo davar - ve shavua tov,
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>answered. He lies, start to finish.
>>>Susan
>On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
>>Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
>>Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
>>they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
On Jun 6, 11:15 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
>has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
>of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
>>Bashing
>>the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
Duwayne asks leading questions, I think, but rarely any rhetorical
questions, and he asks them to use, not as a springboard to vilify
Judaism, per se; his underlying motive is to reassure himself that
his decision to cut his ties to the Mormon church was The Right Thing
To Do. That he based that decision on his misreading and
misinterpretation of one or two verses from Numbers 31 is the chief
sticking point with him -- or one of them. Apparently, reading the KJV
of the bible, as opposed the Mormon version of the bible, came as a
great shock to him. Then, too, there's probably the concept of the
Gawd of Luv adding fuel to the fire.
>Also because the answer given showed him up for the lying
>hatemonger he is, rather than knuckled under to his projecting
>said bigotry onto his exposer.
Duwayne is trying to project his own personal mindset onto others, by
way of adding reinforcements to his decision to cut his ties to his
church, based on his personal view of a KJV verse. Duwayne simply
can't seem to understand that neither version is relevant to Judaism;
that the texts have been gone over time and again for centuries; and,
most of all, that there exists in Judaism no single official dogmatic
interpretation, as is, apparently, the case with the religion he
follows.
>>Proffessor Hofstadter , had some marvelous articles about these kinds
>>of questions ,,,
>
>I always wish I could get paid for pointing out the obvious :-)
>Susan
Yes, but would you have to pay up whenever the obvious is pointed out
TO you? No thanks.
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 7-Jun-2009, dsharavi <dsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> >>Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> >>Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
> >>they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
>
> On Jun 6, 11:15 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
> >has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
> >of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
>
> >>Bashing
> >>the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
>
> Duwayne asks leading questions, I think, but rarely any rhetorical
> questions, and he asks them to use, not as a springboard to vilify
> Judaism, per se;
No - he didn't need a springboard for that - he used Israel as that,
& the so-called "questions" were launched the minute his Jew-hatred
was discovered, as a projected defense to try to get out of addressing
his own bigotry.
> his underlying motive is to reassure himself that
> his decision to cut his ties to the Mormon church was The Right Thing
> To Do.
Oh, there's that, too, I'm sure - whatever.
> That he based that decision on his misreading and
> misinterpretation of one or two verses from Numbers 31 is the chief
> sticking point with him -- or one of them. Apparently, reading the KJV
> of the bible, as opposed the Mormon version of the bible, came as a
> great shock to him. Then, too, there's probably the concept of the
> Gawd of Luv adding fuel to the fire.
>
> >Also because the answer given showed him up for the lying
> >hatemonger he is, rather than knuckled under to his projecting
> >said bigotry onto his exposer.
>
> Duwayne is trying to project his own personal mindset onto others, by
> way of adding reinforcements to his decision to cut his ties to his
> church,
Yes, I can see that, clearly.
& yet, his mindset is still Mormon
(And, interestingly enough, looks close to Scientology tactics)
> based on his personal view of a KJV verse. Duwayne simply
> can't seem to understand that neither version is relevant to Judaism;
> that the texts have been gone over time and again for centuries; and,
> most of all, that there exists in Judaism no single official dogmatic
> interpretation, as is, apparently, the case with the religion he
> follows.
>
> >>Proffessor Hofstadter , had some marvelous articles about these kinds
> >>of questions ,,,
> >
> >I always wish I could get paid for pointing out the obvious :-)
> >Susan
>
> Yes, but would you have to pay up whenever the obvious is pointed out
> TO you? No thanks.
:-)
Susan
�R. L. Measures
> On 7-Jun-2009, dsharavi <dsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > >>Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> > >>Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
> > >>they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
> >
> > On Jun 6, 11:15 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > >And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
> > >has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
> > >of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
> >
> > >>Bashing
> > >>the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
> >
> > Duwayne asks leading questions, I think, but rarely any rhetorical
> > questions, and he asks them to use, not as a springboard to vilify
> > Judaism, per se;
>
> No - he didn't need a springboard for that - he used Israel as that,
> & the so-called "questions" were launched the minute his Jew-hatred
> was discovered, as a projected defense to try to get out of addressing
> his own bigotry.
>
� indeed
"Stupid is as stupid does."
- F. Gump
Duwaynea Anderson
> > > these are irational questions , one can not ask , because there is no
> > > answer ,,
>
> > The question is this: "If god commanded you to commit genocide, would
> > you do it?"
>
> As i told you , some questions can`t be answered until the REAL life
> moment , when you have to act on the spot , and know that your
> reaction or non action will have results !!!!
And some can. It's a shame that the gang of five (Deborah, Susan,
Measures, and mirjam) seem to think there are times when genocide
might be justifiable.
> Until that moment you can`t answer that so called question, which pure
> RHETHORICAL .
Asking you to unconditionally condemn genocide is hardly a rhetorical
question.
And your answer says a lot about what's gone horrible wrong with the
Zionist movement.
This really is "Animal Farm" at its finest.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> > He also lies about the questions ever having been
> > answered.
What was the answer?
> He lies, start to finish.
>
> > Susan
>
> Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> Rhetorical Questions ,
Asking someone if they unconditionally condemn genocide would only be
considered "rhetorical" by a homicidal maniac.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> >>>He also lies about the questions ever having been
> >>>answered. He lies, start to finish.
> >>>Susan
> >On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> >>Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> >>Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
> >>they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
>
> On Jun 6, 11:15 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> >And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
> >has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
> >of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
> >>Bashing
> >>the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
>
> Duwayne asks leading questions,
You think these are some sort of trick questions, designed to trap
you? And yet you say you answered them. And yet you won't repeat the
answer.
Can't you keep your story straight?
Once again, here are the questions that drive the racists/bigots nuts:
1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
to personal freedom/self determination?
2) Do you agree with the inalienable rights described at this link?
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
3) If your god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
4) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
Any moral/ethica person wouldn't find those to be "leading" or trick
question.
Any moral/ethical person would be happy to answer them.
Why do they cause you so much trouble, Deborah?
<snip to end>
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
yes duhwayne why do you have so much trouble being honest and
ethical... you wont answer questions you twist and warp answers and
make false accusations and all of this because you hate Jews!
Duwaynea Anderson
It's anti-Semitic to suggest that advocating for human rights, laws
against genocide, means "hates Jews."
mir...@actcom.co.il
> And some can. It's a shame that the gang of five (Deborah, Susan,
> Measures, and mirjam) seem to think there are times when genocide
> might be justifiable.
I must say that i do like `and`s words very much , since she writes
the shortest notes.
>
> > Until that moment you can`t answer that so called question, which pure
> > RHETHORICAL .
>
> Asking you to unconditionally condemn genocide is hardly a rhetorical
> question.
I have said/wrote more than once that i am against any violence ,
starting from Verbal Violence , Hate posts , baseless accusations
etc.
>this really is "Animal Farm" at its finest.
Yes, it is Obvious that You seem to think that you are better than all
others .
mirjam
Duwaynea Anderson
> mr Duwaynea
>
> > And some can. It's a shame that the gang of five (Deborah, Susan,
> > Measures, and mirjam) seem to think there are times when genocide
> > might be justifiable.
>
> I must say that i do like `and`s words very much , since she writes
> the shortest notes.
>
>
>
> > > Until that moment you can`t answer that so called question, which pure
> > > RHETHORICAL .
>
> > Asking you to unconditionally condemn genocide is hardly a rhetorical
> > question.
>
> I have said/wrote more than once that i am against any violence ,
Then you agree that asking someone if they unconditionally condemn
genocide is hardly a "rhetorical" question.
> starting from Verbal Violence ,
You must be kidding. You would start with "verbal violence" instead
of something substantial like killing people in a land over war? Or
child soldiers?
You start with "verbal violence" over genocide?
> Hate posts
I assume you will have strong words for Deborah, then.
> , baseless accusations
> etc.
Do speak with Susan, then. And Measures, too. They both seem to
think that advocating for Palestinian rights equates with anti-
Sematism.
Talk about yoru "baseless accusations!"
> >this really is "Animal Farm" at its finest.
>
> Yes, it is
The message of that book was something along the line of "anyone can
dish it out, if they're the ones in power."
> Obvious that You seem to think that you are better than all
> others .
Well, there you go again. Making baseless accusations, again.
Look, if you feel guilty for not supporting basic human rights the way
you should, well, you only have yourself to blame.
> mirjam
fla...@verizon.net
On 8-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:23�pm, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > > He also lies about the questions ever having been
> > > answered.
>
> What was the answer?
It's in the thread - and you know which one it is, because
your contradictory lies show how desperate you are about it.
> >
> > Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> > Rhetorical Questions ,
>
> Asking someone if they unconditionally condemn genocide would only be
> considered "rhetorical" by a homicidal maniac.
Except whe it's someone who is falsely pretending anyone
needs to be asked it solely to hide his own bigotry
But, your growing desperation, as proven by your growing
hyperbole, is noted.
Susan
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
> On Jun 8, 1:24 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 2:19 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > yes duhwayne why do you have so much trouble being honest and
> > ethical... you wont answer questions you twist and warp answers and
> > make false accusations and all of this because you hate Jews!
>
> It's anti-Semitic to suggest that advocating for human rights, laws
> against genocide, means "hates Jews."
Notice how duhwayne the rabid racist doesn't answer the charges but
falsely claims he is merely advocating rights etc...
yes the liar duhwayne exposes himself again!!! As if he can escape his
earlier conduct!!!
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 8-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:23 pm, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > > > He also lies about the questions ever having been
> > > > answered.
>
> > What was the answer?
>
> It's in the thread - and you know which one it is, because
> your contradictory lies show how desperate you are about it.
>
>
>
> > > Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
> > > Rhetorical Questions ,
>
> > Asking someone if they unconditionally condemn genocide would only be
> > considered "rhetorical" by a homicidal maniac.
>
There you go with your projections again.
It's time for Susan to be responsible for Susan. If you have any
humanity at all, you will join me in universally condemning genocide.
Will you? Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jun 5, 3:12 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 1:01 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > So, Duwayne, here's the question you've been ignoring:
> > > If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
> > > her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
> > > boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
> > > that is--or doing it.)
>
> > Are you still confused about the impossibility of "stopping" something
> > that's never been done?
>
> > But you never said it was "impossible" for your god to ask you to
> > commit genocide. You never said it's something that he/she/it would
> > absolutely never do. You just said it was unlikely.
>
> > But something that's unlikely is still possible (unlike the bogus
> > sexual fantasy that you tried to make into a question).
>
> Um, no one mentioned any sexual fantasy - until you just did,
> Duwayne.
It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
of your sexual fantasy.
But the larger issue, which you ignore, is that I'm an atheist, so
asking me what I'd do if god did such and such is meaningless. I
don't believe in god. Yours, or anyone else’s.
But you *do* believe in god. And you've admitted there's a chance
this god of yours might actually command people to commit genocide.
So the question for you is very relevant. If your god commanded you
to commit genocide, would you do it?
We all know the answer -- you wouldn't ignore, snip, and dodge the
question if your answer was "no."
And that's the real take-away here. The power of religious fanaticism
knows no bounds. Religious fanatics will do anything for their gods.
<snip to end>
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
>
> It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
> told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
> of your sexual fantasy.
So using your own pathetic attempt at logic genocide is your fantasy
bwahahahar poor blithering idiot the more you lie the easier it is to
expose you!
mir...@actcom.co.il
Genocide is a crime that starts by inciting , first some person[s]
keeps hammering his hateful thoughts into other people.
Your Constant hammering of this word /term , always connecting it to
the same Group`s name, means that you Incite and send propaganda by
which you are preparing the hateful background of your own genocidal
intentions.
I will give you an example of waht you did , to your own mind , and
tried to so to others ...
When somebody keeps telling others, that he will kill them , he is
crossing a mental inhibition, after this he is quicker in hitting or
kicking others since `hitting is less than killing`, .
By the Constant repeating of the above term , you have wiped away the
horrid nature of this word, for you it is now a word , you play with ,
a term you toss at other people. You have long ago lost the real
meaning of it.
I sure wish for you , that you haven`t lost any family members and
friends in Accidents , or to any other violent unnantural death.
People who lost such losses , don`t play with such words .
mirjam
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jun 9, 8:35 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
> > told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
> > of your sexual fantasy.
>
> So using your own pathetic attempt at logic genocide is your fantasy
My question to Deborah (and Susan, and you, for that matter) is
whether or not you'd do what your self-professed god tells you. Even
if he/she/it tells you to commit genocide. Remember, this is a
question about how you’d behave with regard to a god that you assert
has real existence.
And Deborah allows that her god might command an act of genocide. So
from Deborah’s standpoint, nothing in my question is untenable.
On the other hand, Deborah's question was whether or not I'd follow
the command of a god I *don't* believe in. In particular, she went
into great detail describing a lewd sex act. Since I obviously don’t
believe in any gods – including Deborah’s sexually deviant god – I’d
give no more heed to her god, or yours, than I’d give to the Easter
Bunny, which is to say, none.
So the two questions illuminate totally different situations.
I suspect that the lewd sex act Deborah describes in such detail is a
secret fantasy of hers. You can see in her writing how disoriented
her argument comes as she disorients herself with dirty language that
is, for her, apparently quite stimulating.
Anyway, enough of Deborah's dark sexual fantasies. What *would* you
do if this god of yours commanded you to kill children that had been
taken as prisoners of war? Would you hack them up, as commanded, or
would you disobey your god?
Duwaynea Anderson
> Mr Duwanea
>
> Genocide is a crime that starts by inciting , first some person[s]
> keeps hammering his hateful thoughts into other people.
Yes, I agree with you there.
>
> Your Constant hammering of this word /term ,
Now, see, this is where your train comes off the track. It's where
your circular logic starts doing loopdeloops.
Advocating for human rights isn't hate. Refusing to grant that all
people have basic human rights *is* a form of hate speach.
Advocating the legitimacy of genocide when god commands it *is* a form
of hate speach.
And depicting opposition to genocide as "anti Semitic" is also a form
of hate speach.
> always connecting it to
> the same Group`s name,
What group name?
> means that you Incite and send propaganda by
> which you are preparing the hateful background of your own genocidal
> intentions.
What nonsense.
>
> I will give you an example of waht you did , your own mind , and
> tried to so to others ...
> When somebody keeps telling others, that he will kill them , he is
> crossing a mental inhibition, after this he is quicker in hitting or
> kicking others since `hitting is less than killing`, .
Well, I agree that Michael Ejercito was absolutely horrible for
sayinig that "...when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to
commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
R. L. Measures is close behind. When I asked him if he condemned
genocide in every case he said "Not in every case."
These two shining examples of ethics/morality made those astounding
statements in the thread "Now kill all the boys," on June 2, 2009.
How amazing the evil that religious fanaticism wreaks on the hearts of
men.
<snip to end>
mir...@actcom.co.il
> > Genocide is a crime that starts by inciting , first some person[s]
> > keeps hammering his hateful thoughts into other people.
>
> Yes, I agree with you there.
So? why do you incite ?
> > Your Constant hammering of this word /term ,
>
> Now, see, this is where your train comes off the track. It's where
> your circular logic starts doing loopdeloops.
The only circular thing i see here , are Your evercycling `so called`
questions + nonstop `demands` or `claims` that people `answer ` your
recycled posts.
> Advocating for human rights isn't hate. Refusing to grant that all
> people have basic human rights *is* a form of hate speach.
Now , you surprized me , Since in None of your posts , did i ever see
any advocacy for human rights, nore any empathy for any suffering
human. all i saw in your posts is pestering people with rhetorical
questions , that aren`t even related to any human rights as such.
All your recycled flood of posts does is annoy people, i haven`t seen
any Good idea or example of a deed, By you , of how to promote /
enhance/ spread the knowledge/ empathy/ understanding / awreness of
any one real Human right .
> Advocating the legitimacy of genocide when god commands it *is* a form
> of hate speach.
the only poster who keeps connecting this two ideas is You !!!! other
people kindly tried to explain to you that you are mistaken , mis
quoting and misusing texts.
> And depicting opposition to genocide as "anti Semitic" is also a form
> of hate speach.
You keep accusing Jewish People and Jewish Books of promoting
Genocide, when some of us explain to you that you are taking things
out of context, and you refuse to even listen and go on with your
mistaken misquoting , while pointing fingers at us Jews , This is
AntiSemitism. trying to turn the words of others and claiming that our
explainations are hate speech.
You are a Demagogue.
> What group name?
those you mention all the time !!!
> What nonsense.
Indeed your non-senses.
>
> Well, I agree that Michael Ejercito was absolutely horrible for
> sayinig that "...when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to
> commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
I am not discussing Other people`s posts with you , i am reacting to
YOUR POSTS,,,,,
>
> These two shining examples of ethics/morality made those astounding
> statements in the thread "Now kill all the boys," on June 2, 2009.
I don`t have any insight about the level of your so called Ethics /
Morality , and i am not interested in them .
It might sound strange to you , but Ethics and Morality aren`t the
same to all Humans Even though we would like to believe that they
are.
Most western Cultures would say the Jewish Mosaic "Ten Commandments"
are the basis of their Ethics/Morality . { and even they don`t keep to
them all the time,]
Some Eastern cultures have different Ethics and Moral ideas. Different
and Still they are Ethics and Moral .
Thieves are supposed to have a Thieves Ethics, Even societies of
Prison people have their own Ethics and Moral ,,,,, Different than
ours but they have them !!!!
So what are you talking about .
>
> How amazing the evil that religious fanaticism wreaks on the hearts of
> men.
And last Not least , during my life , i noted that most people live by
a normal social acceptable Ethics and Moral , while they never mention
the words , They are friendly to others , drive by the road ethics ,
help others , etc ,,On the other hand people who are constantly
mentioning Ethics /Morals , aren`t always those whom practice them.
mirjam
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> <snip to end>
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 4:07�am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �8-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 5, 9:23�pm, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > > > > He also lies about the questions ever having been
> > > > > answered.
> >
> > > What was the answer?
> >
> > It's in the thread - and you know which one it is, because
> > your contradictory lies show how desperate you are about it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he
> > > > asks
> > > > Rhetorical Questions ,
> >
> > > Asking someone if they unconditionally condemn genocide would only be
> > > considered "rhetorical" by a homicidal maniac.
> >
> > Except whne it's someone who is falsely pretending .....
>
I see that you cowardly snipped what you culd not refute.
> There you go with your projections again.
Pot, kitten, black, as always.
It's a shame that when you finally do learn, it's
something *else* incorrect.
Susan
Duwaynea Anderson
> Mr Duwaynea
>
> > > Genocide is a crime that starts by inciting , first some person[s]
> > > keeps hammering his hateful thoughts into other people.
>
> > Yes, I agree with you there.
>
> So? why do you incite ?
The only people incited by questions about basic human rights are
bigots.
Why do you support the bigots?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On 9-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:07 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 8-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 9:23 pm, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > > > > > He also lies about the questions ever having been
> > > > > > answered.
>
> > > > What was the answer?
>
> > > It's in the thread - and you know which one it is, because
> > > your contradictory lies show how desperate you are about it.
>
> > > > > Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he
> > > > > asks
> > > > > Rhetorical Questions ,
>
> > > > Asking someone if they unconditionally condemn genocide would only be
> > > > considered "rhetorical" by a homicidal maniac.
>
> > > Except whne it's someone who is falsely pretending .....
>
> I see that you cowardly snipped what you culd not refute.
Ad hominem name calling requires no refutation.
Do you agree with Michael Ejercito, who says ".... when God orders
genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells
you to do so."
>
> > There you go with your projections again.
>
> Pot, kitten, black, as always.
> It's a shame that when you finally do learn, it's
> something *else* incorrect.
>
> Susan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>wrote:
>>><snip>
.
>>>dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>>wrote:
>>>>So, Duwayne, here's the question you've been ignoring:
>>>>If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
>>>>her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
>>>>boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
>>>>that is--or doing it.)
>>>Are you still confused about the impossibility of "stopping" something
>>>that's never been done?
>>>But you never said it was "impossible" for your god to ask you to
>>>commit genocide. You never said it's something that he/she/it would
>>>absolutely never do. You just said it was unlikely.
.
>>>But something that's unlikely is still possible (unlike the bogus
>>>sexual fantasy that you tried to make into a question).
>dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>>wrote:
>>Um, no one mentioned any sexual fantasy - until you just did,
>>Duwayne.
On Jun 9, 5:35 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>>>wrote:
>It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
>told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
>of your sexual fantasy.
It's YOUR sexual fantasy, Duwayne, and you've admitted it.
.
>But the larger issue, which you ignore, is that I'm an atheist, so
>asking me what I'd do if god did such and such is meaningless. I
>don't believe in god. Yours, or anyone else’s.
Asking questions based on your personal opinion of what you think a
god would or wouldn't do is rather self-defeating, no?
.
>But you *do* believe in god.
You don't know that. For all you know, I could worship at the Church
of Satan in Seaside.
.
>And you've admitted there's a chance
>this god of yours might actually command people to commit genocide.
You're lying again, Duwayne. I never stated anything of the sort. Stop
lying.
>So the question for you is very relevant. If your god commanded you
>to commit genocide, would you do it?
>We all know the answer --
.
No, you don't. You may presume to know what my answer might be, given
your tendency to put words into people's mouths, but you don't know
what my answer would be.
.
>you wouldn't ignore, snip, and dodge the
>question if your answer was "no."
.
Sure I would. I'm interested to know why a self-proclaimed atheist
spend so much time dwelling on the actions of a deity you say you
don't believe in, even to the point of launching into a diatribe about
your supposedly non-existent god's character, or lack thereof.
.
>And that's the real take-away here. The power of religious fanaticism
>knows no bounds. Religious fanatics will do anything for their gods.
><snip to end>
You would know that, Duwayne, having spent so many years peddling your
god and your religion.
Deborah
>>>It's a conundrum. Should you piss off god, or should you give
>>>yourself away?
.
>>Well, for you, it certainly is, but the conundrum is should you give
>>yourself away and piss off Laura, Christopher, Jacob, and Michael, or
>>should you just keep going as you are, with what is beginning to
>>appear less your fantasy, and more the actual nature of your
>>relationship with Caroline. A conundrum indeed, but nothing an ex-
>>religionmonger like yourself couldn't handle.
>>><snip to end>
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>wrote:
>>>It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
>>>told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
>>>of your sexual fantasy.
Duwayne is lying again. I said nothing of the sort.
.
On Jun 9, 8:26 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>My question to Deborah (and Susan, and you, for that matter) is
>whether or not you'd do what your self-professed god tells you. Even
>if he/she/it tells you to commit genocide. Remember, this is a
>question about how you’d behave with regard to a god that you assert
>has real existence.
Duwayne is the one who has been most assiduous in asserting the "real
existence" of this god. A holder, no doubt, from his long years as a
religion-monger. I certainly haven't asserted the existence of any
god.
.
>And Deborah allows that her god might command an act of genocide.
>So
>from Deborah’s standpoint, nothing in my question is untenable.
Duwayne is lying again, and putting his words into other people's
mouths.
.
>On the other hand, Deborah's question was whether or not I'd follow
>the command of a god I *don't* believe in. In particular, she went
>into great detail describing a lewd sex act.
Duwayne is lying again. The "great detail" of Duwayne's "lewd sexual
act" consisted only of:
"So, Duwayne, here's the question you've been ignoring:
If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at
her gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
boinking her instead?"
From that, Duwayne immediately launched into allusions about sex, and
the details known only to himself.
.
>Since I obviously don’t
>believe in any gods – including Deborah’s sexually deviant god –
Another of Duwayne's personal mental haverings.
.
>I’d
>give no more heed to her god, or yours, than I’d give to the Easter
>Bunny, which is to say, none.
Actually, Duwayne has spent more time dwelling on this god of his than
anyone else in these threads.
.
>So the two questions illuminate totally different situations.
>I suspect that the lewd sex act Deborah describes in such detail is a
>secret fantasy of hers. You can see in her writing how disoriented
>her argument comes as she disorients herself with dirty language that
>is, for her, apparently quite stimulating.
In fact, it was Duwayne who interjected: "I'd tell god to go fuck
himself. "
.
>Anyway, enough of Deborah's dark sexual fantasies.
Duwayne's really getting off on his imaginary "sexual fantasies",
isn't he? I'm shocked, shocked. But it probably wouldn't have
surprised Elmer Gantry.
.
>What *would* you
>do if this god of yours commanded you to kill children that had been
>taken as prisoners of war? Would you hack them up, as commanded, or
>would you disobey your god?
>
>>bwahahahar poor blithering idiot the more you lie the easier it is to
>>expose you!
He certainly does that, doesn't he? Never let it be said that the old
tactic of hitting the ass across the face to get its attention doesn't
yield results. Even if the results looked for come not, they're still
illuminating. Oh yes very.
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>>>>answered. He lies, start to finish.
>>>>>Susan
>>>On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
>>>>Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
>>>>Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
>>>>they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
.
>>On Jun 6, 11:15 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
>>>has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
>>>of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
.
>>>>Bashing
>>>>the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
.
>On Jun 7, 11:23 am, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>Duwayne asks leading questions,
.
On Jun 8, 11:19 am, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>You think these are some sort of trick questions, designed to trap
>you?
Read before you snip. I wrote that you ask LEADING questions, not
TRICK questions. You're incapable of producing "trick questions" that
would "trap" anyone whose IQ is higher than room temperature.
>And yet you say you answered them. And yet you won't repeat the
>answer.
.
I've answered so many of your boring questions I can't recall them.
>Can't you keep your story straight?
Sure I can, since, unlike you, I don't lie. It's your lies I can't
keep straight.
>Once again, here are the questions that drive the racists/bigots nuts:
>1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
>certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
>to personal freedom/self determination?
Palestinians don't think so, especially as regards Jews, women, and
gays.
>2) Do you agree with the inalienable rights described at this link?
>http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
The countries who paid lip service to them don't.
>3) If your god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
Are you, a self-proclaimed atheist, acknowledging the existence of a
god?
>4) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
I suspect the "unconditionally" qualification here.
>Any moral/ethica person wouldn't find those to be "leading" or trick
>question.
That's a leading statement.
>Any moral/ethical person would be happy to answer them.
That's another leading statement.
>Why do they cause you so much trouble, Deborah?
It's you, Duwayne, who seems to be having a bit of trouble with them.
I find it mildly entertainin, although I rather doubt you'll hijack
any of these threads into providing you with the reassurance you crave
that your decision to leave Mormonism -- based on a verse in one
chapter in one book of the bible, which you admitted you'd never read
-- was The Right Thing To Do. You're certainly not going to get it by
pestering people and making yourself out to be a bigger fool than you
were born.
Deborah
><snip to end>
NefeshBarYochai
Deb Duwayne reads your posts, then he imagines how you appear and then
jacks-off. He a pert-nert-ner. They can be a real problem when they
come to Eretz Israel because no-one wants to give them work and they
run out of money then they infest the hostels and the evil spirit
inside them begins persecuting the Jews with hate language. Usually a
soldier or some fed up Israel citizen ends their misery and they are
buried. I think it would be pleasant if a Jew were to chastise the
Duwayne goy with a Bolshevik Machete.
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>>>>>He also lies about the questions ever having been
>>>>>>answered. He lies, start to finish.
>>>>>>Susan
.
>>>>On 6-Jun-2009, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
>>>>>Susan , You are correct , Mr Duwaynea does not ask questions , he asks
>>>>>Rhetorical Questions , which aren`t meant to be answered , because
>>>>>they are built so that they can be used as a spring board to
.
>>>On Jun 6, 11:15 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>>And he "asks" them solely to cover his own bigotry that
>>>>has been exposed. He started on me at the very beginning
>>>>of the thread, right after he called Judaism "vile".
.
>>>>>Bashing
>>>>>the person who `supposedly` didn`t answer them.
.
>>On Jun 7, 11:23 am, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>Duwayne asks leading questions,
.
>On Jun 8, 11:19 am, Duwaynea Anderson
><DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>You think these are some sort of trick questions, designed to trap
>>you?
.
>On Jun 10, 10:57 am, "dshar...@gmail.com" <dshar...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>Read before you snip. I wrote that you ask LEADING questions, not
>>TRICK questions. You're incapable of producing "trick questions" that
>>would "trap" anyone whose IQ is higher than room temperature.
.
>>>And yet you say you answered them. And yet you won't repeat the
>>>answer.
.
>>I've answered so many of your boring questions I can't recall them.
.
>>>Can't you keep your story straight?
.
>>Sure I can, since, unlike you, I don't lie. It's your lies I can't
>>keep straight.
.
>>>Once again, here are the questions that drive the racists/bigots nuts:
>>>1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
>>>certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
>>>to personal freedom/self determination?
.
>>Palestinians don't think so, especially as regards Jews, women, and
>>gays.
.
>>>2) Do you agree with the inalienable rights described at this link?
>>>http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
.
>>The countries who paid lip service to them don't.
.
>>>3) If your god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
.
>>Are you, a self-proclaimed atheist, acknowledging the existence of a
>>god?
.
>>>4) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
.
>>I suspect the "unconditionally" qualification here.
.
>>>Any moral/ethica person wouldn't find those to be "leading" or trick
>>>question.
.
>>That's a leading statement.
.
>>>Any moral/ethical person would be happy to answer them.
.
>>That's another leading statement.
.
>>>Why do they cause you so much trouble, Deborah?
.
>>It's you, Duwayne, who seems to be having a bit of trouble with them.
>>I find it mildly entertainin, although I rather doubt you'll hijack
>>any of these threads into providing you with the reassurance you crave
>>that your decision to leave Mormonism -- based on a verse in one
>>chapter in one book of the bible, which you admitted you'd never read
>>-- was The Right Thing To Do. You're certainly not going to get it by
>>pestering people and making yourself out to be a bigger fool than you
>>were born.
>>Deborah
>
>>><snip to end>
On Jun 10, 10:09 am, NefeshBarYochai <tach...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>Deb Duwayne reads your posts, then he imagines how you appear and then
>jacks-off. He a pert-nert-ner. They can be a real problem when they
>come to Eretz Israel because no-one wants to give them work and they
>run out of money then they infest the hostels and the evil spirit
>inside them begins persecuting the Jews with hate language. Usually a
>soldier or some fed up Israel citizen ends their misery and they are
>buried. I think it would be pleasant if a Jew were to chastise the
>Duwayne goy with a Bolshevik Machete.
A Bolshevik machete would work like Bolshevism, so Duwayne would
probably get off on it. From the allusions he made to all the details
of his "dark" fantasy life, he seems the type who would be into BDSM.
Deborah
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Except when it's someone who is falsely pretending .....
> >
> > I see that you cowardly snipped what you could not refute.
>
> Ad hominem name calling requires no refutation.
Non sequitur, of course.
Susan
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> .>On the other hand, Deborah's question was whether or not I'd follow
> >the command of a god I *don't* believe in. In particular, she went
> >into great detail describing a lewd sex act.
>
> .
> Duwayne is lying again.
Here's what Deborah said, in this thread, on June 5:
"If your "god" told you to stop drooling over Caroline's snatch at her
gymnastic meets, would you tell him to fuck himself, and start
boinking her instead? (Assuming you haven't been fantasizing about it,
that is--or doing it.."
So Deborah is the one lying. She really did ask me if I'd perform a
lewd sex act if commanded by my god.
Except I'm an atheist. I don't have a god. And the lewd sex act is
obviously a projection of Deborah's dark sexual fantasies.
On the other hand, Deborah does have a god. And she allows that this
god *might* ask his/her/its followers to commit genocide.
So it makes perfect sense to ask Deborah if she would commit genocide
if her god commanded it.
The fact Deborah tries so hard to dodge that simple question
illustrates that her answer is "yes."
She's in good company with Michael Ejercito, who says "... when God
orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God
tells you to do so."
These two shining examples of ethics/morality made those astounding
statements in the thread "Now kill all the boys," on June 2, 2009.
How amazing the evil that religious fanaticism wreaks on the hearts of
men.
fla...@verizon.net
On 10-Jun-2009, Duwaynea Anderson <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 10:55�pm, mir...@actcom.co.il wrote:
> > Mr Duwaynea
> >
> > > > Genocide is a crime that starts by inciting , first some person[s]
> > > > keeps hammering his hateful thoughts into other people.
> >
> > > Yes, I agree with you there.
> >
> > So? �why do you incite ?
>
> The only people incited by questions about basic human rights are
> bigots.
The only people who pretend that innocent people
need to answer to them are those trying to project
their own bigotry onto those who exposed it.
> Why do you support the bigots?
>
She doesn't support you at all ---
> <snip to end>
--- & your cowardice proves you know why.
Susan
Duwaynea Anderson
Deborah, you're lying again. What is it with you and Susan and
"wanking," "snatches," and sex with animals?
Anyway, you're still ignoring my question. Do you agree with Michael
Ejercito, who says "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong
NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Duwayne is the one who has been most assiduous in asserting the "real
> existence" of this god.
I'm an atheist, explaining to a theist (Deborah) that genocide is bad.
So Deborah is lying (another bad thing) when she says I'm asserting
the real existence of her evil god.
What I'm pointing out is that Deborah thinks this god really exists.
So the question is, does Deborah agree with her fellow theist, Michael
Ejercito, who says "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong
NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
It's pretty clear the two religious wackoos are on the same page,
becaue Deborah steadfastly refuses to condemn Michael for justifying
genocide the way he does.
<snip to end>
TDNY
dsharavi
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
><snip>
<Duwayne's snippy snippies restored>
>>>>On Jun 9, 8:35 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
>>>>>told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
>>>>>of your sexual fantasy.
.
>dsharavi wrote:
>>Duwayne is lying again. I said nothing of the sort.
.
>On Jun 9, 7:52 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>So using your own pathetic attempt at logic genocide is your fantasy
.
>>On Jun 9, 8:26 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>My question to Deborah (and Susan, and you, for that matter) is
>>>whether or not you'd do what your self-professed god tells you. Even
>>>if he/she/it tells you to commit genocide. Remember, this is a
>>>question about how you’d behave with regard to a god that you assert
>>>has real existence.
.
>>Duwayne is the one who has been most assiduous in asserting the "real
>>existence" of this god.
<Duwayne's snippy snippy restored>
>>A holder, no doubt, from his long years as a
>>religion-monger. I certainly haven't asserted the existence of any
>>god.
.
>>>And Deborah allows that her god might command an act of genocide.
>>>So
>>>from Deborah’s standpoint, nothing in my question is untenable.
>>
.
>>Duwayne is lying again, and putting his words into other people's
>>mouths.
.>On the other hand, Deborah's question was whether or not I'd follow
>>>the command of a god I *don't* believe in. In particular, she went
>>>into great detail describing a lewd sex act.
.
>>Duwayne is lying again. The "great detail" of Duwayne's "lewd sexual
.
>>>>bwahahahar poor blithering idiot the more you lie the easier it is to
>>>>expose you!
.
>>He certainly does that, doesn't he? Never let it be said that the old
>>tactic of hitting the ass across the face to get its attention doesn't
>>yield results. Even if the results looked for come not, they're still
>>illuminating. Oh yes very.
>I'm an atheist, explaining to a theist (Deborah) that genocide is bad.
What you are, Duwayne, is a liar trying to backpeddle, now that you've
been caught in another of your many lies. You have no basis for your
assertion that I'm a theist.
>So Deborah is lying (another bad thing) when she says I'm asserting
>the real existence of her evil god.
You're lying again, Duwayne. You're many, many posts ask the
repetitious question what one would do if god said this or that.
Despite your assertions that you're an atheist, one is led to believe
that you actually believe in this god which you peddled so assiduously
for years.
.
>What I'm pointing out is that Deborah thinks this god really exists.
You have no basis for presuming to "point out" what I think or do not
think. If you do, then one may "point out" that you think you can
really indulge yourself in the dark sexual fantasies to which you
confessed.
>So the question is, does Deborah agree with her fellow theist, Michael
>Ejercito, who says "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong
>NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>It's pretty clear the two religious wackoos are on the same page,
>becaue Deborah steadfastly refuses to condemn Michael for justifying
>genocide the way he does.
><snip to end>
<Duwayne's snippy snippy restored>
Already answered, Duwayne, and the answer was no, no, no. And if you
want to condemn Michael for having an opinion, and for exercising his
human right to freedom of expression of his opinion, go right ahead.
You're just the sort to do it. I support the human right to freedom of
expression, as you clearly do not.
And thanks for proving, again, what a liar and a hypocrite you are.
Deborah
dsharavi
On Jun 10, 12:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Deborah, you're lying again.
You need to find another comment for whenever you're in another of
your lies, Duwayne. Your "liar liar pants on fire" defence has long
grown stale.
.
>What is it with you and Susan and
>"wanking," "snatches," and sex with animals?
What's with your and your histrionic response to your confession of
dark fantasies, Duwayne? And sex with animals, now. You're into
bestial fantasies, too, along with wanking off on usenet, Duwayne?
>Anyway, you're still ignoring my question.
You're lying again, Duwayne. I've answered you sophomoric question
several times, along with correcting your lies.
>Do you agree with Michael
>Ejercito, who says "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong
>NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
Already answered, Duwayne. My answer is the same as it was. No.
I also replied to your egregiously hypocritical lie that "Deborah
steadfastly refuses to condemn Michael for justifying genocide the way
he does." If you want to condemn Michael for having an opinion, and
for exercising his human right to freedom of expression of his
opinion, go right ahead. You're just the sort to do it. I support the
human right to freedom of expression, as you clearly do not.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Already answered, Duwayne, and the answer was no, no, no.
Thanks, Deborah. I finally found your answer, and you really are
willing to defy your god, if that's what it takes.
On a personal level, though, are you willing to say that you
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:26 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Don't you think it's time for you to universally and unequivocally
> > > condemn genocide as a crime against humanity?
>
> > No.
>
> > To do that would require me to believe that the Lord God Almighty
> > is a criminal.
>
> > It is NOT wrong when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT
> > to commit genocide when God tells you to do so.
>
> such a danger to the world.
>
> Let's see. Ruffle, ruffle. Okay here is a summary so far. With
> regard to the question "Do you universally and unconditionally condemn
> genocide as a crime against humanity" here are the answers:
>
> 1) R. L. Measures, "Not in every case."
> 2) Michael Ejercito, "... NOT .... when God orders genocide; in fact,
> it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
>
> statements in the thread "Now kill all the boys," on June 2, 2009.
>
> How amazing the evil that religious fanaticism wreaks on the hearts of
> men.
>
Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
When the authority is commanding genocide, yes.
It was that sort of "obedience" that facilitated the holocaust, you
know.
>
> Michael- Hide quoted text -
dsharavi
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
><snip>
<Duwayne Anderson's snippy snippies restored>
>>On Jun 10, 12:12 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
>><DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
.
<Duwayne's previous snippy snippies restored>
.
>>>>>>On Jun 9, 8:35 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>It was in your description. Recall you asked me what I'd do if my god
>>>>>>>told me to perform a sexual act. The sexual act, obviously, is part
>>>>>>>of your sexual fantasy.
.
>>>dsharavi wrote:
>>>>Duwayne is lying again. I said nothing of the sort.
.
>>>>>On Jun 9, 7:52 pm, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>>So using your own pathetic attempt at logic genocide is your fantasy
.
>>>>On Jun 9, 8:26 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>My question to Deborah (and Susan, and you, for that matter) is
>>>>>whether or not you'd do what your self-professed god tells you. Even
>>>>>if he/she/it tells you to commit genocide. Remember, this is a
>>>>>question about how you’d behave with regard to a god that you assert
>>>>>has real existence.
.
>>>>Duwayne is the one who has been most assiduous in asserting the "real
>>>>existence" of this god.
.
<Duwayne's previous snippy snippy restored>
.
>>>>A holder, no doubt, from his long years as a
>>>>religion-monger. I certainly haven't asserted the existence of any
>>>>god.
.
>>>>>And Deborah allows that her god might command an act of genocide.
>>>>>So
>>>>>from Deborah’s standpoint, nothing in my question is untenable.
.
>>>>Duwayne is lying again, and putting his words into other people's
>>>>mouths.
.
.
<Duwayne's previous snippy snippy restored>
>>
>>Already answered, Duwayne, and the answer was no, no, no. And if you
>>want to condemn Michael for having an opinion, and for exercising his
>>human right to freedom of expression of his opinion, go right ahead.
>>You're just the sort to do it. I support the human right to freedom of
>>expression, as you clearly do not.
>>
>>And thanks for proving, again, what a liar and a hypocrite you are.
>>
>>Deborah
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/911f838abb6b1379
>On Jun 10, 2:45 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>Already answered, Duwayne, and the answer was no, no, no.
>Thanks, Deborah. I finally found your answer,
After you lied about it for some half dozen posts.
>and you really are
>willing to defy your god, if that's what it takes.
And now you've snipped it, so you can lie about it again.
Once again:
"Already answered, Duwayne, and the answer was no, no, no. And if you
want to condemn Michael for having an opinion, and for exercising his
human right to freedom of expression of his opinion, go right ahead.
You're just the sort to do it. I support the human right to freedom of
expression, as you clearly do not.
And thanks for proving, again, what a liar and a hypocrite you are."
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/911f838abb6b1379
>On a personal level, though, are you willing to say that you
>unconditionally condemn genocide?
On a personal level, whatever that means, I'm willing to say that I
unconditionally condemn your arrant hypocrisy and your dishonesty,
express my sincere sympathy that you're as thick as you are and hope
you're not too thick for this to sink in.
Deborah