from the son of a cult leader
Dan
Tell me someone, which is more dangerous; the man damaging the lives of
people believing in out of body experiences, space crafts following comets,
etc., or your local pastor who is able to make his congregation believe in
all he says? The local preachers ideas may not be as "far out" as the
cults we hear about, but they can be equally as damaging.
My father is a pastor of a large church in Syracuse NY. He has a TV show,
school, properties, and more. Many of the characteristics identifying cults
exist within his church, and the results are the same, like death and
separation of family & friends. My family has been separated for many
years, and hundreds if not thousands of other families continue being
destroyed today.
I've posted letters I've written to my father, my mother and others in my
family, and some of the stories of past church members whose families have
been broken by my fathers ways. While being both dynamic and appealing, my
father is also manipulative and controlling. It is my agenda to expose
suppressed information to those within his group to offer a more realistic
picture for their conclusions to be based upon.
I also want those of you in this group and others to be aware that cults
not so easily identified do exist, and are every bit as damaging.
http://www.icanect.net/~carmen
go to section called "The New Forum".
Dan Mazur
car...@icanect.net
Uncle Woody
Dan, a very insightful post. I couldn't help but notice that you included
alt. religion.mormon, and scientology on your distribution list. What many
people find so hard to believe is that such a respected and mainstream
religion like Mormonism, could even come close to being identified as a
cult. Though the church today, through diligent management of the media
and excommunication of numerous dissidents, has pretty successfully
discarded its doctrinal and historical dilemmas that are not very
palatable in today's rational world. Much better to focus on family unity
and social touchy, feely emotions, than to deal with the collective body of
bullshit found in the Journal of Discourses and Joseph Smith's early
speeches/writings. As for Scientology . . . despite its 'respectable'
spokespersons -- John Travolta, Nichole Kidman and Tom Cruise, has some
very, very strange cultic beliefs and likewise, finds itself in an
evolutionary phase. Back to Mormonism . . . The thread between
AppleWhite's belief in finding salvation in an orbiting space ship and
Mormonism's concept of celestial marriage (one man, many wives) in an
eternal kingdom located on a glorious golden orb (the sanctified earth)
bathed in fiery light, is very, very fine indeed. Satanists -- well you
are the guys that are the most pathetic -- just plain full of shit *and*
stupid -- duped into worship of a mythical figure created by mainstream
Christianity.
UncleWoody (former Mormon)
"Sacred Cows make great Hamburgers"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan <car...@icanect.net> wrote in article
<01bc4ce9$21376260$85a18ece@host>...
Perry B. Friedman
I can't help but notice that you included alt.religion.roshambo in
your posting. Roshambo is one of the few relgions that does not attempt
to control it's members nad has no "leaders" per se, which makes
it very hared for it to fall into the trappings of cults. While
Roshambo DOES attempt to extract money from it's followers, each follower,
in theory, should have as much a chance of GAINING money by following
Roshambo as of losing money (although it may be argued that the most
devout followers do, in fact, have an edge... and additionall,y
followers of "Roshambo" should be able to easily obtain
money from the non-believers...)
Roshambo lacks the facades of moral structure and other artificial
restrictions placed upon it's members that most religions and cults
have.
For more information about Roshambo, including the FAQ, see
http://www.emf.net/~estephen/roshambo/
Perry
aka
Roshamboy
r...@megsinet.net
On 19 Apr 1997 15:13:06 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>A religion which is based on and uses secrecy within its actions and
>"mysteries" is potentially dangerous. When those actions and events are
>used to manipulate people's lives you end up with a problem.
>
>One of the most common prayers made to any version of divinity, regardless
>of what you believe in, is for enlightenment.
>
>Of course, just like many branches of government, the "enlightenment" is
>only desired for everyone *else*, with the pastors and religious "heads"
>being mysteriously exempt from their own supplications.
>
>Organizations and "religions" based on and using these principles should be
>exposed for who and what they are -- manipulators of mankind -- not religions.
>
>-- Nick
It is interesting that in European tradition Nick is a pseudonym for
the Devil, Satan etc. especially coming from MCS notoriously known
for paranoid minds and neurotic sentiments
r...@megsinet.net
On 19 Apr 1997 15:13:06 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>In article <01bc4ce9$21376260$85a18ece@host>, Dan <car...@icanect.net> wrote:
>>
>>Tell me someone, which is more dangerous; the man damaging the lives of
>>people believing in out of body experiences, space crafts following comets,
>>etc., or your local pastor who is able to make his congregation believe in
>>all he says? The local preachers ideas may not be as "far out" as the
>>cults we hear about, but they can be equally as damaging.
>
>There is no significant difference.
r...@megsinet.net
It is interesting that the term "nick" was used as the pen name for
the devil or satan in european countries. It is also interesting that
this message comes from MCS net the home of very paranoid people.
Aren't you attempting to "manipulate" by these statements? Who are
you to judge whether or not something is to be exposed?
Perhaps the one to be exposed is yourself.
You obviously have a short circuit with what "mysteries" in a religion
is all about.
You also seem to be a very paranoid individual missing the point of
the post you are responding to.
Perhaps you may be hiding behind a pretense of academic know how when
in reality you betray gross ignorance and bius neurosis.
Maybe what would really put you in your place is a dose of vulgar
colloquialisms that may be all you really understand.
Elaine
r...@megsinet.net wrote:
>
>
> All which have irresistably identified with christian beliefs one way
> or another.
>
> CULTS are the cultivation of a particular thing. and it seems that
> what christians cultivate is a strong sense of guilt and paranoia that
> usually paves the way for their followers to justify both self
> destruction and the defiance of other people's privacy without regard
> of the other's choice.
Is it Christians, or is it humans with this tendency? What about the
kamikaze and what about Muslims who get into heaven by dying in defense
of Islam?
Elaine
Blain Nelson
Elaine wrote:
>
> r...@megsinet.net wrote:
> >
>
> > CULTS are the cultivation of a particular thing. and it seems that
> > what christians cultivate is a strong sense of guilt and paranoia that
> > usually paves the way for their followers to justify both self
> > destruction and the defiance of other people's privacy without regard
> > of the other's choice.
>
> Is it Christians, or is it humans with this tendency? What about the
> kamikaze and what about Muslims who get into heaven by dying in defense
> of Islam?
>
Yeah, but they never did those things before the Christians got to
them.
By the mighty rule of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, it is therefor proven
that Christianity is responsible for all crazy and cruel behavior,
whether consistant with the principles taught by their so-called leader,
that exists anywhere since the advent of the Christian Church.
Anybody wanna see what I can do with a nice construction/deconstruction
fallacy?
> Elaine
Blain
<tips hat>
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <3359ad36...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
>On 19 Apr 1997 15:13:06 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>
>>A religion which is based on and uses secrecy within its actions and
>>"mysteries" is potentially dangerous. When those actions and events are
>>used to manipulate people's lives you end up with a problem.
>>
>>One of the most common prayers made to any version of divinity, regardless
>>of what you believe in, is for enlightenment.
>>
>>Of course, just like many branches of government, the "enlightenment" is
>>only desired for everyone *else*, with the pastors and religious "heads"
>>being mysteriously exempt from their own supplications.
>>
>>Organizations and "religions" based on and using these principles should be
>>exposed for who and what they are -- manipulators of mankind -- not religions.
>>
>>-- Nick
>
>
>It is interesting that the term "nick" was used as the pen name for
>the devil or satan in european countries.
Huh?
> It is also interesting that
>this message comes from MCS net the home of very paranoid people.
Oh boy. Now who I get my net access from is all of a sudden a reason to
think there's more to this than what it is.
You must have a lot of substance to your arguments then "Rom", don't you?
Let's see, guilt-by-association (even at arms length), guilt-by-purchase,
and ad-hominen. We're up to three in the first four lines.
I'm impressed.
>Aren't you attempting to "manipulate" by these statements? Who are
>you to judge whether or not something is to be exposed?
>Perhaps the one to be exposed is yourself.
"Religions" that are afraid of their "secrets" being learned are probably a
lot like the Scientologists who fear their "secrets" being brought out in
the light of day. You know, the "fact" that these "OT"s are what our bodies
are made of, etc.
Kinda like the people thinking that space ships follow comets.
Heh, whatever floats your boat.
>You obviously have a short circuit with what "mysteries" in a religion
>is all about.
Oh, I doubt it.
>You also seem to be a very paranoid individual missing the point of
>the post you are responding to.
Paranoid? Really now.... just what "religion" do you claim to represent,
and in what capacity? Do you claim to represent any such thing at all?
>Perhaps you may be hiding behind a pretense of academic know how when
>in reality you betray gross ignorance and bius neurosis.
Academic know-how?
Who said anything about academics?
>Maybe what would really put you in your place is a dose of vulgar
>colloquialisms that may be all you really understand.
That makes just as much sense as your previous insults.... Vulgarity?
Gee, in a discussion of religious abuse now people think that a proper
response is to stoop to the level of insults and vulgarity?
Please, do tell the world what "religion" you represent, if any.
It would be doing the world a service.
-- Nick
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <3359aa1...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 1997 17:46:03 GMT, "Dan" <car...@icanect.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Tell me someone, which is more dangerous; the man damaging the lives of
>>people believing in out of body experiences, space crafts following comets,
>>etc., or your local pastor who is able to make his congregation believe in
>>all he says? The local preachers ideas may not be as "far out" as the
>with christian ethics.
The majority of the population in those areas happens to be Christian.
Proof by statistic. I'm impressed.
>It seems a christian thing to do is to destroy yourself and your
>congregation.
It seems to be statistically likely that since the majority of people in
the areas where such things have happened are Christian, the majority of
such situations would involve Christians sects.
First-semester statistics would teach you this.
>Take example the orthodox in Russia during the time of Peter the
>great. The congregation immolated themselves inside the church.
>Of more recent take Johnstown, David Koresh and the latest fiasco
>with the heaven's gate cult.
>
>All which have irresistably identified with christian beliefs one way
>or another.
All in parts of the world which have the majority of people worshipping
Christian ideals.
>CULTS are the cultivation of a particular thing. and it seems that
>what christians cultivate is a strong sense of guilt and paranoia that
>usually paves the way for their followers to justify both self
>destruction and the defiance of other people's privacy without regard
>of the other's choice.
Its always nice to associate statistics (which prove nothing other than
their validity) with learned behaviors and intentions.
Of course, its also the last refuge of someone who doesn't have a point.
What religious "cult" do you represent and/or follow, rom? Perhaps some
statistical information could be compiled on that particular sect, cult, or
whatever you wish to call it -- and then compared with the statistics of
people who have done inarguably insane things under the banner of
Christianity over the same period of time.
Of course that might cast an entirely different light on your views,
especially if, say, ten percent of that particular sect were shown to
have "destroyed themselves" (even if according to your criteria) where
the percentage of Christians who have done the same were, say, 0.001%.
Statistics are funny things Rom. What's even funnier is someone who
doesn't like to look at more than one of them, and tries to draw
conclusions without looking at the other side of the data.
-- Nick
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <3359b0bc...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 1997 15:13:06 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>A religion which is based on and uses secrecy within its actions and
>>"mysteries" is potentially dangerous. When those actions and events are
>>used to manipulate people's lives you end up with a problem.
>>
>>One of the most common prayers made to any version of divinity, regardless
>>of what you believe in, is for enlightenment.
>>
>>Of course, just like many branches of government, the "enlightenment" is
>>only desired for everyone *else*, with the pastors and religious "heads"
>>being mysteriously exempt from their own supplications.
>>
>>Organizations and "religions" based on and using these principles should be
>>exposed for who and what they are -- manipulators of mankind -- not religions.
>>
>>-- Nick
>
>the Devil, Satan etc. especially coming from MCS notoriously known
>for paranoid minds and neurotic sentiments
Huh?
-- Nick
Mariposa
ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>The majority of the population in those areas happens to be Christian.
>Proof by statistic. I'm impressed.
>First-semester statistics would teach you this.
>All in parts of the world which have the majority of people worshipping
>Christian ideals.
>>CULTS are the cultivation of a particular thing. and it seems that
>>what christians cultivate is a strong sense of guilt and paranoia that
>>usually paves the way for their followers to justify both self
>>destruction and the defiance of other people's privacy without regard
>>of the other's choice.
>Its always nice to associate statistics (which prove nothing other than
>their validity) with learned behaviors and intentions.
>Of course, its also the last refuge of someone who doesn't have a point.
Hmmmm, sounds like a similar argument; tho, no one was talking of
statistics save you.
There was a time when christianity was no more statistically
significant than many other groups and there was still war. The
Crusades were basically, Muslim vs. Roman Catholic because of a
militant pope. Then, the Crusades turned against their own, Christian
fighting christian.
Of course there were the bloody riots of Luther when the Pope mas
excommunicated poeple.
Of course there was the century of buying your place in heaven.
But these were probably no more than statistical burps I suppose.
>Statistics are funny things Rom. What's even funnier is someone who
>doesn't like to look at more than one of them, and tries to draw
>conclusions without looking at the other side of the data.
>-- Nick
Ach de Liber!
The only one spouting statistics seems to be you Nick. We are talking
of ideas and theories supported by facts presented in a standard
debate method. Do you not know what a debate is? I mean, even
someone with a high school education should know what a debate is and
what it is not.
Rom is debating this theory: Christianity is a major factor in
religious conflict.
Rom's evidence: Crusades, James Jones, the Muslim Faction.
Nick's counter: statistics tho no represented factual statistics
presented.
Nick's contrary evidence or corroborative evidence: Non existent.
Rom 1
Nick 0
Therefore, Nick, you've failed even in the most basic of debates rules
to even support in an intelligent and communicative manner, any aspect
of your own theory.
(I wish these children would stop posting)
Now, my argument to Rom is this:
Is Christianity as a religion, the problem or is it the the members of
the Religion that arethe issue. If it is the former, then is the
religion invalid as a spiritual path and valid as a milteristic path.
If its the Latter thesis, that is, the members of the religion are the
root, then how do christians loose site.
OR, is there a third option??
Mariposa
ever the sardonic
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <5jhc0a$k...@tepe.tezcat.com>, Mariposa <mari...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>
>>The majority of the population in those areas happens to be Christian.
...
>Hmmmm, sounds like a similar argument; tho, no one was talking of
>statistics save you.
Correct. The point here is that the people who are doing the "crazy"
things like killing themselves "in the name of God" are likely, at least
in the Western world, to be Christian -- simply from a statistical point
of view.
What's interesting is when the statistics *don't* match with experience.
Then you truly have something to look into.
>There was a time when christianity was no more statistically
>significant than many other groups and there was still war.
Yep. The Crusades, the Mongol wars, etc. Lots of examples. Few if any
religious sects over the ages can claim to be free of the "my God wins
and if you don't like it you're dead" problem.
Even the Egyptians had a stick in their craw for people who disagreed
with them on spiritual matters. No surprises there.
>The only one spouting statistics seems to be you Nick. We are talking
>of ideas and theories supported by facts presented in a standard
>debate method.
Really? I see no evidence of a debate here.
>Rom is debating this theory: Christianity is a major factor in
>religious conflict.
>
>Rom's evidence: Crusades, James Jones, the Muslim Faction.
Rom's evidence is fallacious, as it belies the point -- *religion in
general* is a major factor in conflict, armed and otherwise. This is
hardly divine inspiration.
>Now, my argument to Rom is this:
>
>Is Christianity as a religion, the problem or is it the the members of
>the Religion that arethe issue. If it is the former, then is the
>religion invalid as a spiritual path and valid as a milteristic path.
>If its the Latter thesis, that is, the members of the religion are the
>root, then how do christians loose site.
>
>OR, is there a third option??
>
>Mariposa
> ever the sardonic
Why don't we focus on the true problem, which is the often-represented
view that one's religion is "superior" to the others which might be
proffered?
I find it interesting that in these groups, most of which are not
Judeo-Christian in their bent, that people would try to do precisely
that which they claim they abhor so much -- that is, discredit someone
else's religious options and choice.
Its easy to take cheap shots. Its much harder to live by your own
words. If you claim to not be one of the people who would turn religion
into conflict, then part of that is inherently respecting another's choice,
even if you disagree with it.
That means refraining from derogatory commentary intended to inflame and
incite.
That which Rom accuses the Christians of he is guilty of himself -- unless,
of course, he is also a Christian...... he hasn't identified his particular
spiritual bent in this discussion.
-- Nick
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <335d935...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 1997 12:58:04 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>>Statistics are funny things Rom. What's even funnier is someone who
>>doesn't like to look at more than one of them, and tries to draw
>>conclusions without looking at the other side of the data.
>>
>>-- Nick
>
>You are so transparent karl.
Who is karl? Explain please...
> "What's even funnier is someone (like
>you) who doesn't like to look at more than one of them, and draws
>conclusions without looking at the other side of the data."
>
>It is painfully obvious that you miss the whole point of my post. But
>then again that's not surprising since you really have very little
>ekidemic background that you can draw conclusions from.
>
>hypocrite!
People in glass houses....
Gee Rom, touched a nerve eh? You still haven't told me what "religion"
you follow that is immune to the very sins that you claim the Christians
all practice -- primarily hostility to practitioners of other faiths.
Or are you yourself one of those Christians who you lambast so loudly?
-- Nick
r...@megsinet.net
On 21 Apr 1997 12:58:04 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>Statistics are funny things Rom. What's even funnier is someone who
>doesn't like to look at more than one of them, and tries to draw
>conclusions without looking at the other side of the data.
>
>-- Nick
You are so transparent karl. "What's even funnier is someone (like
r...@megsinet.net
On 22 Apr 1997 23:43:32 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>Why don't we focus on the true problem, which is the often-represented
>view that one's religion is "superior" to the others which might be
>proffered?
>
>I find it interesting that in these groups, most of which are not
>Judeo-Christian in their bent, that people would try to do precisely
>that which they claim they abhor so much -- that is, discredit someone
>else's religious options and choice.
You seem to be the first to be doing just that!
>
>Its easy to take cheap shots. Its much harder to live by your own
>words. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^
ROTFOL! You certainly should know that! Of course, since you seem to
believe yourself an autocrat no one else's opinion is <reeally>
important to the unsolicited verbal regurgitation you emulate.
> If you claim to not be one of the people who would turn religion
>into conflict, then part of that is inherently respecting another's choice,
>even if you disagree with it.
Very good! Now if you only believed that there may be hope for you
yet.
>
>That means refraining from derogatory commentary intended to inflame and
>incite.
And what are you exactly doing?? If not that which you so
pretentiously timorious complain about?
>That which Rom accuses the Christians of he is guilty of himself -- unless,
>of course, he is also a Christian...... he hasn't identified his particular
>spiritual bent in this discussion.
>
>-- Nick
Aaah! You are a new born Christian! admit it! LOL
Your zealous defense betrays an ignoble person trying very hard to
convince us that he has some worth.
Unfortunately you have far less to show than those whom you criticize
as you are limited to your vociferous complaints which have a
jaundiced tinge of a "Messiah Complex"
WHO....ARE....YOU.....??? why don't YOU identify your particular
spiritual bent in this discussion. In fact why don't you be HONEST
instead of all this camouflage?
We all know who you are. And what you are. It is a common deride among
many in cyberspace.
child.
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon
In article <335d9858...@megsnews.megsinet.net> r...@megsinet.net writes:
>On 22 Apr 1997 23:43:32 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>>Its easy to take cheap shots. Its much harder to live by your own
>>words. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^
>ROTFOL! You certainly should know that! Of course, since you seem to
>believe yourself an autocrat no one else's opinion is <reeally>
>important to the unsolicited verbal regurgitation you emulate.
My double is in the right. He asks only that people conduct
themselves as they claim they all should conduct themselves. We can be
autocrates without being hypocrates because we don't say "don't be
autocrates." We only say that those who say no one should be an
autocrate have no business being autocrates themselves. It is not
autocracy that is the issue, but hypocracy. I find nothing morally wrong
in vengence style killing like in the movies "The Crow" or "Deathwish."
However, when a person who says "thou shalt not kill" starts burning
witches, there is something inherently wrong with the philosophy which
the Witchhunter is living by.
If you can't see the difference between "don't smoke" and "don't
smoke if you tell others not to smoke; excuse my while I light up,"
you're an idiot.
>Your zealous defense betrays an ignoble person trying very hard to
>convince us that he has some worth.
No one has the right to criticize Christianity while begging for
religious tolerance. I don't want torerance, but rather INTOLERANCE of
religion. Revoke tax free status and GET RID OF RIFRA! Ban Christianity
as child abuse - fuck it. But I'm not hypocrate. The law is the law,
and I ask only for a total seperation of church and state - not by making
the state keep it's hands off the church - but rather by applying laws to
all regardless of religious affliction.
>We all know who you are. And what you are. It is a common deride among
>many in cyberspace.
A Scientologist?
-----
Karl Alexis McKinnon
SP2
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon
In article <5jk4v1$lmv$1...@Mercury.mcs.net> ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) writes:
>In article <335d935...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>Who is karl? Explain please...
Hi Nick. I'm Karl. Evidently, I am you. I don't know if this
also makes you me. (Not every paralelogram is a rectangle). I am
opaque, and currently a sherberty shade of orange.
The name "Nick" would fit my personality as a film noir fan, and
the anti-Christian stance fits my own philosophy of "Inherit the Wind"
being what Christianity truly is. Nice to meet me.
My arguement would be that religion is general is a manifestation
of a mental disease. There are many things that show mankinds DEATH as a
species. One of them is the loss of a specific "heat" period. The other
is the development of religion.
I often point to John Zerzan's "Argiculture: Demon Engine of
Civilization" for a comprehensive look at the problem: agro-imperialism.
Christianity is just another manifestation of the problem. I agree with
Muslims when they say that Christianity is the 2nd worse herresy compared
to Gnosticism, though. (Islam would be the 3rd, I guess).
>Gee Rom, touched a nerve eh? You still haven't told me what "religion"
>you follow that is immune to the very sins that you claim the Christians
>all practice -- primarily hostility to practitioners of other faiths.
My guess? Scientology. They are critical of Christians while
being Gnostic themselves (they can rightly afford this critism, as their
youth and lack of manpower makes them far more innocent than older
faiths). They are also critical of me, which is why I am SP2.
Steve Monson
Here's an example of a mangled expression which had me LOL for quite a while.
In an attempt to use an expression in what I can only assume is not is
native language,
Nicholas Ekademis <ni...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>>There was a time when christianity was no more statistically
>>significant than many other groups and there was still war.
>
>Yep. The Crusades, the Mongol wars, etc. Lots of examples. Few if any
>religious sects over the ages can claim to be free of the "my God wins
>and if you don't like it you're dead" problem.
>
>Even the Egyptians had a stick in their craw for people who disagreed
>with them on spiritual matters. No surprises there.
Now, I've heard of having something "stick on your craw" when it's
particularly galling or offensive, but I had never before imagined an
actual "stick in their craw."
Ain't language interesting?
Steve Monson
--
If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <335d9858...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>
>On 22 Apr 1997 23:43:32 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>>Why don't we focus on the true problem, which is the often-represented
>>view that one's religion is "superior" to the others which might be
>>proffered?
>
Really? And just what choices do you believe I have discredited and
derided? You, for example, haven't even identified a particular religious
path to which one could direct commentary. I couldn't begin to tell you
which group you are coming from -- perhaps alt.religion.scientology?
>>Its easy to take cheap shots. Its much harder to live by your own
>>words. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^
>
>ROTFOL! You certainly should know that! Of course, since you seem to
>believe yourself an autocrat no one else's opinion is <reeally>
>important to the unsolicited verbal regurgitation you emulate.
An autocrat? Huh? You're really funny ROM....
I raised a point, and you go off on a name-calling binge. Really adult of
you. Why don't you return to the point and discuss it instead? You might
learn something.
>> If you claim to not be one of the people who would turn religion
>>into conflict, then part of that is inherently respecting another's choice,
>>even if you disagree with it.
>
>Very good! Now if you only believed that there may be hope for you
>yet.
Does this, in your worldview, including the right to question and illuminate
the practice(s) of a "religion" in order that people might make their own
decisions with *all* the information they are able to gather?
Or does it include only the right to question religions you wish to
question, and not others?
>>That means refraining from derogatory commentary intended to inflame and
>>incite.
>
>And what are you exactly doing?? If not that which you so
>pretentiously timorious complain about?
I made a point that Christians would be statistically the majority of people
who, today, abuse religion to self-destruct. I also asked what percentage
of the people in your particular following, whatever that might be, have had
"bad" experiences with that religion.
You never did answer that question. Why? I'm willing to bet that 0.01% or
less of Christians have a bad religious experience as a consequence of their
involvement. That means that if you have, say, 10,000 "adherents" to a
particular faith then only one person could have had a "bad" experience in
that context.
There are, I believe, some 20 million Catholics in the US. This would mean
that out of those 20 million people, 2,000 people could be materially harmed
and we'd be within the statistical limits that I'm talking about.
Let's put a time line on this of, oh, say, 10 years for the sake of argument.
A nice round number.
How about it "Rom"?
How about if you identify the particular religious persuasion that you are
a part of, if any, estimate how many people follow that particular path in
whatever level of "orthodoxy" you wish to define, and then tell us how many
people you think have had a "bad" experience at that religious path's hands.
Let's compare relative harm, shall we?
>Aaah! You are a new born Christian! admit it! LOL
Huh? My particular faith hasn't been requested, but that's ok. I'm
using a common branch of Christianity which you derided in order to make
my point. Obviously you belong to some other branch of religion, so let's
have it on the table where everyone can see.
>Unfortunately you have far less to show than those whom you criticize
>as you are limited to your vociferous complaints which have a
>jaundiced tinge of a "Messiah Complex"
I am no Messiah. Just a man.
>WHO....ARE....YOU.....???
My friends call me Nick.
> why don't YOU identify your particular
>spiritual bent in this discussion.
I asked you..... if you must know, my particular spiritual path could best
be related to a native american pathway, but it has no formal name.
> In fact why don't you be HONEST
>instead of all this camouflage?
I am being honest. Why don't you try answering some of the questions put up
for discussion instead of attacking the person doing the asking?
>We all know who you are. And what you are. It is a common deride among
>many in cyberspace.
>
>child.
More personal attacks.
My my my. Hopefully someone will identify this character and his particular
persuasion -- it is a fine example of how *not* to conduct yourself with
balance in your life.
-- Nick
Mariposa
ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>Really? I see no evidence of a debate here.
That's because you've added nothing to the debate.
>Rom's evidence is fallacious, as it belies the point -- *religion in
>general* is a major factor in conflict, armed and otherwise. This is
>hardly divine inspiration.
How can his evidence be 'fallacious' (you've misused the word btw)
when you've agredd with his evidence a few sentences back. Shame.
Lack of consistency here, I see.
And the thesis may not be divind inspiration, but, most christians,
including all variations there of, refuse to accept responsibility, in
the sense that the 'church' did indeed do these crimes against
humanity, and acknowledge the continued use of christianity, the
bible, and evangelism as a weapon of war. Most actually even say
'war against..' and not realize the implications, direct and indirect,
of that phrase and how absolutely disgusting, reprehensible,
frigtening it is.
>Why don't we focus on the true problem, which is the often-represented
>view that one's religion is "superior" to the others which might be
>proffered?
Hmm, interesting thesis, not at all related to this discussion.
Again, lack of focus and consistency here. It is a worthy discussian
for another thread tho'.
>I find it interesting that in these groups, most of which are not
>Judeo-Christian in their bent, that people would try to do precisely
>that which they claim they abhor so much -- that is, discredit someone
>else's religious options and choice.
"discredit" and historical accuracy are two very different things.
For instance, there exist no archeological evidecne to support the
claim by the Jewish Torah that Egypt held them as slaves. In Fact,
egyptian chronicles do not mention anything of the 'Moses' figure or
any of the plagues supposedly visited upon the EGyptians...
Does that discredit a religion, maybe. But, it does correct or, at
the very least, pose a possible alternative more possible accurate
than biblical history.
Besides which, are you not also generalizing when you state that thse
who are non christian fdo the same they abhor. I personally do not
waste much, if any, time on christians, most of those whom I have met
are so programmed by their cult as to lact even the smallest spark of
humanity let alone any independant thought or action.
>Its easy to take cheap shots. Its much harder to live by your own
>words. If you claim to not be one of the people who would turn religion
>into conflict, then part of that is inherently respecting another's choice,
>even if you disagree with it.
No one, save you and some other christians, has made any cheap shot.
Unless you are so sensitive to any criticism as to take it as an
insult, then I would say this; leave usenet. You need a thick skin
and a nickels worth of intelligence to survive.
>That which Rom accuses the Christians of he is guilty of himself -- unless,
>of course, he is also a Christian...... he hasn't identified his particular
>spiritual bent in this discussion.
>-- Nick
And what is the importance of his religious choice? How does taht
effect the discussion?
Mariposa
Ever the Sardonic
Mariposa
caps...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Karl Mac Mc Kinnon) wrote:
>In article <5jk4v1$lmv$1...@Mercury.mcs.net> ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) writes:
>>In article <335d935...@megsnews.megsinet.net>, <r...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>>>On 21 Apr 1997 12:58:04 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>>Who is karl? Explain please...
> Hi Nick. I'm Karl. Evidently, I am you. I don't know if this
>also makes you me. (Not every paralelogram is a rectangle). I am
>opaque, and currently a sherberty shade of orange.
>
Sorry Karl Mac, your not the Karl Rom is refering to.
The other Karl, the Karl that is not you, and someone you do not want
to be, is a person whose sole goal is to rip and rend and destroy
people who he disagrees with about anything and everything.
This Karl, in his militancy, actually tried to have this newsgroup
removed because this Karl wanted to 'make a gesture' about his disdain
of rom.
Rom, atleast from the posts, was Karl's spiritual father, helped him
build a , at one time, successful internet business, help him learn
civility, and find a wife.
Karl has turned around and spurned, threw in rom's face and,
appearantly, into every person who helped Karl, everything that they
did for him.
Now, his wife is divorcing him for another woman, his business is
failing, even in Crain's Chicago Business, a well respected
conservative business paper, dissed him, and he actually tried to fire
Ameritech, Chicago's Local Telephone provider, as the provider of his
phone lines.
in other words a real nice guy.
Mariposa
Ever the Sardonic
Karl Denninger
In article <5jp2n6$s...@tepe.tezcat.com>, Mariposa <mari...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>Now, his wife is divorcing him for another woman,
Utterly false.
> his business is
>failing,
Our accountants were rolling on the floor over this one! (False)
even in Crain's Chicago Business, a well respected
>conservative business paper, dissed him,
Nothing new there; if you know anything of Crains that is..
> and he actually tried to fire
>Ameritech, Chicago's Local Telephone provider, as the provider of his
>phone lines.
Uh, not tried. Did.
With this stellar accuracy record (0%) one should question not only you, but
your sources.
$ finger mari...@tezcat.com
dean matthew barthuly (mariposa) is not presently logged in.
Hi Dean.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <5jp28q$s...@tepe.tezcat.com>, Mariposa <mari...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>>general* is a major factor in conflict, armed and otherwise. This is
>>hardly divine inspiration.
>
>including all variations there of, refuse to accept responsibility, in
>the sense that the 'church' did indeed do these crimes against
>humanity, and acknowledge the continued use of christianity, the
>bible, and evangelism as a weapon of war.
Excuse me? You're missing a few things.... I've talked to several
Christian pastors in my many years, and more than a few of them have
admitted that there are "false shepherds" as they put it. Some of them
have even referred to specific branches of Christianity in these discussions
and dissertations to make a specific point.
I believe you're tarring all of a group with a very wide brush, and one
which is nowhere near being justified.
>>Why don't we focus on the true problem, which is the often-represented
>>view that one's religion is "superior" to the others which might be
>>proffered?
>
>Hmm, interesting thesis, not at all related to this discussion.
On the contrary. It is the root of the problem. It is the "religious"
person's conceit - their belief that their faith is somehow superior,
morally, ethically, or otherwise that gives rise to the trouble in the first
place.
Some religions believe you owe "them" (rather than divinity) for the
blessings which they believe they have "bestowed" on you. If you think
about this, you'll understand how insane and egotistical this is; if the
blessing comes from the divine, then it "belongs" to nobody (other than
divinity), and no human has the right to take either the credit or to
demand tithe (either in money or gratitude) for it. If anything, you
should do something for divinity in thanks -- even if its just to say
"thank you". But that is between YOU and GOD.
Not between you and a so-called priest.
To take that to owing *people*, even in some cases the pontiffs of such
a faith? That's not religion and a relationship with the divine, its
fealty that harkens back to "swearing in" of knights in ancient times.
You see that in Televangelists (Jimmy Baker anyone?) and some other
religious persuasions. To be blunt, its disgusting and egotism beyond
compare. That kind of thing deserves to be exposed anywhere its found.
>>I find it interesting that in these groups, most of which are not
>>Judeo-Christian in their bent, that people would try to do precisely
>>that which they claim they abhor so much -- that is, discredit someone
>>else's religious options and choice.
>
>"discredit" and historical accuracy are two very different things.
On the contrary. I have seen threads in Deja News within some of these
groups ranting on about "idolatry" of the Christians, and in this thread,
branding certain faiths as "cults".
If you're going to ask for religious tolerance, you must first begin with
that same tolerance. The folks screaming about idolatry are the hypocrites;
they themselves can't bring their own minds to the idea that they should
respect *others* decisions in this regard while at the same time they demand
that respect for their views.
That is the position of a despot.
>Does that discredit a religion, maybe. But, it does correct or, at
>the very least, pose a possible alternative more possible accurate
>than biblical history.
The funny thing is, while the Bible was written posthumeously (in some cases
by hundreds -- or more -- years from the time of occurrance) some of these
other faiths claim to *know* what divinity wants with absolutely no
physical guidance at all!
>Besides which, are you not also generalizing when you state that thse
>who are non christian fdo the same they abhor. I personally do not
>waste much, if any, time on christians, most of those whom I have met
>are so programmed by their cult as to lact even the smallest spark of
>humanity let alone any independant thought or action.
See, there it is again. Yet to use the word "cult" within the context of
non-Christiandom, or within your faith, would be a greivous insult. So you
sling it around yourself, refusing to give to others the same respect you
demand.
It is so blatent here.... its disgusting Mariposa. Look in the mirror
sometime.
>No one, save you and some other christians, has made any cheap shot.
>Unless you are so sensitive to any criticism as to take it as an
>insult, then I would say this; leave usenet. You need a thick skin
>and a nickels worth of intelligence to survive.
>
>>That which Rom accuses the Christians of he is guilty of himself -- unless,
>>of course, he is also a Christian...... he hasn't identified his particular
>>spiritual bent in this discussion.
>>-- Nick
>And what is the importance of his religious choice? How does taht
>effect the discussion?
>
>Mariposa
>Ever the Sardonic
It is good to identify your own religious bent when you're going to practice
that which you claim is abhorrent in other paths.
Why?
So people can see you and your faith for what you really are.
-- Nick
Nicholas Ekademis
In article <5jlsae$7...@uwm.edu>,
Karl Mac Mc Kinnon <caps...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>>>On 21 Apr 1997 12:58:04 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>>Who is karl? Explain please...
>
> Hi Nick. I'm Karl. Evidently, I am you. I don't know if this
>also makes you me. (Not every paralelogram is a rectangle). I am
>opaque, and currently a sherberty shade of orange.
hehehehe....
> The name "Nick" would fit my personality as a film noir fan, and
>the anti-Christian stance fits my own philosophy of "Inherit the Wind"
>being what Christianity truly is. Nice to meet me.
Really... perhaps someday I'll meet me too :-)
> My arguement would be that religion is general is a manifestation
>of a mental disease. There are many things that show mankinds DEATH as a
>species. One of them is the loss of a specific "heat" period. The other
>is the development of religion.
That's an interesting hypothesis.... care to debate it a bit?
> I often point to John Zerzan's "Argiculture: Demon Engine of
>Civilization" for a comprehensive look at the problem: agro-imperialism.
>Christianity is just another manifestation of the problem. I agree with
>Muslims when they say that Christianity is the 2nd worse herresy compared
>to Gnosticism, though. (Islam would be the 3rd, I guess).
Hmmm.....
>>Gee Rom, touched a nerve eh? You still haven't told me what "religion"
>>you follow that is immune to the very sins that you claim the Christians
>>all practice -- primarily hostility to practitioners of other faiths.
>
> My guess? Scientology. They are critical of Christians while
>being Gnostic themselves (they can rightly afford this critism, as their
>youth and lack of manpower makes them far more innocent than older
>faiths). They are also critical of me, which is why I am SP2.
That would be my guess too, but heh, what do I know. I'm not even
certain what group this originated in, because the list is so long.
-- Nick
Nicholas Ekademis
>
>>In article <5jk4v1$lmv$1...@Mercury.mcs.net> ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) writes:
>>>>On 21 Apr 1997 12:58:04 -0500, ni...@MCS.COM (Nicholas Ekademis) wrote:
>
>>>Who is karl? Explain please...
>
>> Hi Nick. I'm Karl. Evidently, I am you. I don't know if this
>>also makes you me. (Not every paralelogram is a rectangle). I am
>>opaque, and currently a sherberty shade of orange.
>
Oh ho ho! Now we get to it...
>The other Karl, the Karl that is not you, and someone you do not want
>to be, is a person whose sole goal is to rip and rend and destroy
>people who he disagrees with about anything and everything.
You're referring to one of the people who works for the provider I
buy my service from? Gotta be, otherwise how would you assume that I
was him? Hmmm... and he seems to have followed up to this thread.
Ok, now I get it.
>Rom, atleast from the posts, was Karl's spiritual father, helped him
>build a , at one time, successful internet business, help him learn
>civility, and find a wife.
Heh, all I know is that the service works. If its "unsuccessful" you could
have fooled me. It looks to be not only successful, but boomingly so. Of
course I'm just looking from the perspective of someone who logs in and
sees a few hundred people online at any given point in time, and the
best connectivity I've ever found at an ISP to anywhere I want to go....
Then again, what do I know. I'm originally from the Bay area, and the ISPs
out there basically all suck. I come to Chicago, and I find these guys.
They're great. Their network is up. They get me set up in one day, and
I have zero trouble. I can use the Unix systems, which I like, and all the
tools I'm used to are here. The network is fast. The newsgroups work and
are current. And the modems answer when you call.
That's all I know. And, from my point of view, its also all that matters.
>Karl has turned around and spurned, threw in rom's face and,
>appearantly, into every person who helped Karl, everything that they
>did for him.
Perhaps he wasn't really being "helped"?
Heh, what do I know. Never met the guy.
>Now, his wife is divorcing him for another woman, his business is
>failing, even in Crain's Chicago Business, a well respected
>conservative business paper, dissed him, and he actually tried to fire
>Ameritech, Chicago's Local Telephone provider, as the provider of his
>phone lines.
>
>in other words a real nice guy.
>
>Mariposa
>Ever the Sardonic
Well, I do know this -- his modems aren't on Ameritech lines. I called
Ameritech to verify the calling distance -- they said "those aren't our
numbers, we can't help you".
So I guess he didn't just try to fire Ameritech, he did fire Ameritech.
Strike one for Mariposa.
As for his wife, I would think that's between the two of them, no?
Why don't you ask her? Strike two.
And as for the business failing, if this is a failing ISP, I'd love to see
one prospering. From every indication I have, and I'm just a little itty
bitty user paying my $70/quarter here, its the goddamndest best connectivity
going. Strike three. You're out.
I know you're wrong about at least one of your claims (MCS doesn't use
Ameritech), I seriously doubt that the company is failing (nobody with a
failing ISP provides service and connectivity that is THIS good -- hell,
MCI and the rest of the ISPs I've used -- including some other BIG
nationals -- don't even come close), and frankly, I don't care what his
wife thinks of him.
If this guy knows how to run a business and provide connectivity that works
that's all I care about. It sounds like you're just full of sour grapes
for some reason (perhaps because you're not getting nearly the kind of
service I am, and perhaps you pissed him off and he won't sell to you?) so
you feel you have to go on some personal warpath?
Get a life Mariposa. You need one. Badly.
-- Nick
Blain Nelson
Oya & Pomba wrote:
>
> Is it Christians, or is it humans with this tendency? What about the
> > > kamikaze and what about Muslims who get into heaven by dying in defense
> > > of Islam?
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, but they never did those things before the Christians got to
> > them.
>
> Uh, no offense to your historical research, but you should take the word
> "kamikaze" out of there. The Japanese kicked out all foreign (i.e. white)
> christians and started torturing Japanese ones in the 17th century. It
> pretty much stayed that way until the second half of the 19th century.
> The Kamikaze movement was a secular (believe it or not) scheme started by
> the Tojo cabinet ministers in 1944, when the Imperial Navy had begun to
> lose serious ground to American naval forces in the Pacific. And the
> Japanese ideal of the warrior's destroying all enemies even to his own
> destruction goes back to the medieval period (about the mid 13th century)
> long before Japan had any coherent dealing with Western countries (except
> for the odd Dutch merchant). Even today, in a country of over 120 million
> people, fewer than 12 million identify themselves as "christians" and the
> country still has plenty of serious social problems--all of them
> indigenous to Japan.
I'm sorry, but apparently my irony was a touch too dry for you. The key
phrase to the post was "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."
I appreciate this information, as I'm not all that familiar with
Japanese history. What you are saying is compatible with what little of
the Japanese culture I've been able to learn here and there.
> Exactly how long have you assumed that Islam and Christianity are
> identical? And are you aware that the Suni Muslims actually are DIFFERENT
> from the Shi'ites, which are often the terrorists? Hell, what about Sikhs
> and Hindus?
I've never assumed that Islam and Christianity are identical -- I don't
even consider Christianity and Christianity to be identical. I have a
bit of understanding regarding Islam and the various varieties out
there, including the Druze. Of course, the irony of the notion that the
Muslims were not engaging in suicidal terrorism before the Christians
got to them was intended to be thick -- since Islam was founded in the
Seventh Century of the Christian Era, and Muhammed was clear that
Christians, along with Jews, were to be respected as "people of the
Book."
> Yes, many cultures can be inhumane--but unless my thesaurus is a
> dinosaur, "inhumane" and "christian" are NOT synonymns.
Cultures don't do anything -- people do things. The cultural contexts
in which they grow and live have influence on those individuals -- very
profound influences even -- but the individuals still make all their own
decisions. Anybody can use anything as an excuse or justification for
any kind of despicable behavior. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and anyone
from a belief system that involves scripture or other recorded wisdom
can abuse the doctrines found in them in such a way as to make their
intolerable behavior seem justified, and thereby oppress potentially
many people. Of course, the officially atheistic Soviet bloc did a
pretty decent job of oppressing people without reference to any kind of
god.
The problem is not the culture, it's not the doctrine, it's not the
religion. It's the people and their choices; their behavior.
>
> ---Jon Frater-San
>
> --
Take care,
Blain
Oya & Pomba
Is it Christians, or is it humans with this tendency? What about the
> > kamikaze and what about Muslims who get into heaven by dying in defense
> > of Islam?
> >
>
> Yeah, but they never did those things before the Christians got to
> them.
From Jon:
Uh, no offense to your historical research, but you should take the word
"kamikaze" out of there. The Japanese kicked out all foreign (i.e. white)
christians and started torturing Japanese ones in the 17th century. It
pretty much stayed that way until the second half of the 19th century.
The Kamikaze movement was a secular (believe it or not) scheme started by
the Tojo cabinet ministers in 1944, when the Imperial Navy had begun to
lose serious ground to American naval forces in the Pacific. And the
Japanese ideal of the warrior's destroying all enemies even to his own
destruction goes back to the medieval period (about the mid 13th century)
long before Japan had any coherent dealing with Western countries (except
for the odd Dutch merchant). Even today, in a country of over 120 million
people, fewer than 12 million identify themselves as "christians" and the
country still has plenty of serious social problems--all of them
indigenous to Japan.
Exactly how long have you assumed that Islam and Christianity are
identical? And are you aware that the Suni Muslims actually are DIFFERENT
from the Shi'ites, which are often the terrorists? Hell, what about Sikhs
and Hindus?
Yes, many cultures can be inhumane--but unless my thesaurus is a
dinosaur, "inhumane" and "christian" are NOT synonymns.
---Jon Frater-San
--
*********************************************************************
US is a non-profit multi-faith pagan group operating out of the New York City area. Wicca, Shamanism, Vodou, Santeria, Umbanda, Macumba, Shinto, Buddhism, Nordic, etc. We provide a safe space with no bitchcraft, egos or other social weirdness cluttering up the spirit. No money involved, only food and used craft books for the free lending library.
E-Mail: oyap...@idt.net
*********************************************************************
Paul A. Sheldon
In alt.religion.sabaean Mariposa <mari...@tezcat.com> wrote:
[snip]
: Now, his wife is divorcing him for another woman, his business is
: failing, even in Crain's Chicago Business, a well respected
: conservative business paper, dissed him, and he actually tried to fire
: Ameritech, Chicago's Local Telephone provider, as the provider of his
: phone lines.
: in other words a real nice guy.
er, I don't know about any of that other stuff, but what is so bad
about firing Ameritech? Their lines suck -- I'd like to fire them
too.
: Mariposa
: Ever the Sardonic
--
Paul A. Sheldon "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
gan...@mcs.net for they are subtle and quick to anger."
Mariposa
gan...@MCS.COM (Paul A. Sheldon) wrote:
>er, I don't know about any of that other stuff, but what is so bad
>about firing Ameritech? Their lines suck -- I'd like to fire them
>too.
Oh? And who is left to provide local service? McDonald's?
Oh? And who is left to provide phone lines so you can use a phone?
Burger King?
>: Mariposa
>: Ever the Sardonic
>--
>Paul A. Sheldon "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards,
>gan...@mcs.net for they are subtle and quick to anger."
Mariposa
Ever the Sardonic
Jenn Taylor
Please keep in mind this is a Mormon newsgroup, not a McDonalds nor Burger
King! Also, easy on the explictives. May the love of Christ be with you.
\sable
PS. They do have McDonalds and Burger King web sites if you wish to view
them.
Mariposa <mari...@tezcat.com> wrote in article
<5kbvnc$m...@tepe.tezcat.com>...
Christopher Estep
In article <5kbvnc$m...@tepe.tezcat.com>, mari...@tezcat.com (Mariposa) wrote:
>
>gan...@MCS.COM (Paul A. Sheldon) wrote:
>
>
>>er, I don't know about any of that other stuff, but what is so bad
>>about firing Ameritech? Their lines suck -- I'd like to fire them
>>too.
>
>Oh? And who is left to provide local service? McDonald's?
>Oh? And who is left to provide phone lines so you can use a phone?
>Burger King?
Hello! Welcome to the late 1990's! Some areas have more than one Long
Distance provider, and many more will soon. In California you can choose
between Pacific Bell and AT&T.
Christopher
The Wasp - An LDS Journal
News, Reviews, Commentary, Verified Links, etc.
http://www2.netcom.com/~estep
Mariposa
"Jenn Taylor" <je...@multipro.com> wrote:
>Please keep in mind this is a Mormon newsgroup, not a McDonalds nor Burger
>King! Also, easy on the explictives. May the love of Christ be with you.
>\sable
>PS. They do have McDonalds and Burger King web sites if you wish to view
>them.
Here's some pocket change...Please get a sense of humor or a
life..which ever is cheaper....
EVER THE SARDONIC
(look up the meaning of the word)
Mariposa
T. Leslie Sanders
Mariposa <mari...@tezcat.com> wrote in article
<5kbvnc$m...@tepe.tezcat.com>...
>
> gan...@MCS.COM (Paul A. Sheldon) wrote:
>
>
> >er, I don't know about any of that other stuff, but what is so bad
> >about firing Ameritech? Their lines suck -- I'd like to fire them
> >too.
>
> Oh? And who is left to provide local service? McDonald's?
> Oh? And who is left to provide phone lines so you can use a phone?
> Burger King?
Hmmm...Imagine the possibilities. "Operator, I'd like to make a
long-distance call to Australia."
"Yes, sir...would you like fries with that?"
--
##########################################################
# T. Leslie Sanders # "It's true that there's #
# les...@logicworld.com.au # a fool born every minute... #
# Brisbane, # it's also true that they #
# Queensland, # don't die that fast." #
# Australia # John Laws #
##########################################################