Hackers Hit A New Low
Mayor Of R'lyeh
Snit
a45b0370-4869-497e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 3/30/08
4:28 PM:
> Disgusting.
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented folks try to
attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen in CSMA, even seen
people hunt down others health concerns and try to use that in their
trolling. I admit I even retaliated and returned the "favor" to someone in
CSMA, quite some time ago. Not my proudest moment, but at least I was doing
it in *response* to someone doing it to others.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a45b0370-4869-497e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Disgusting.
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
Your government at work.
Tim Murray
Okay, so I'll put on my tin foil hat: How so?
Alan Baker
<a45b0370-4869-497e...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Disgusting.
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
Who would know more about hitting lows than you, Clyde, except perhaps
Pratt-fall?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Disgusting.
> >
> > http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>
> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented folks try to
> attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen in CSMA, even seen
> people hunt down others health concerns and try to use that in their
> trolling.
Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
--
Sandman[.net]
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:_jYHj.12093$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
See what happens when you take that hat off.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-03D5DE.13...@News.Individual.NET...
You are a perpetrator, he is not.
Steve Carroll
Yeah... right;)
From another post I just wrote:
--
Here is concrete proof that Snit used the Brock McNuggets sock puppet in
another newsgroup (before csma)... a poster wrote this after outing Snit
due to Snit's carelessness:
"Good grief, Snit - I would never have thought Brock McNuggets was YOU".
Snit's reply tried to pretend he'd made some sort of honest 'mistake'
(as if one could do that with sock puppets), but it's followed by an
easily proven lie. Snit writes:
"Oops. I am just setting up my new computer and I forgot to change the
name back to snit before posting. But, yes, Brock McNuggets is another
name I sometimes use. I just find it funny".
<gF_C7.53265$W87.3...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
If you do a google search for Brock McNuggets before the date of this
'Brock McNuggets post' he is being confronted with you won't a single
"posting" event using that name, not "sometimes", as Snit is shown
claiming here, or any other time. Obviously, Snit was preparing to troll
in a newsgroup devoted to people prone to anxiety with a brand new sock
puppet... got busted immediately... and then proceeded to lie about it.
(cue up Snit's BS machine... we can probably expect some outrageous
story that will attempt to stretch reality far beyond belief)
--
That ng had all kinds of turmoil going on in it... I wonder how many
sock puppets Snit has used there... we know he used many in here.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Snit
mr-03D5DE.13...@News.Individual.NET on 3/31/08 5:41 AM:
What has never happened to you - you have never been observant enough to see
what is going on in CSMA?
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>>
>>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented
>>> folks try to attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen
>>> in CSMA, even seen people hunt down others health concerns and try
>>> to use that in their trolling.
>>
>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>
> What has never happened to you
Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >> > Disgusting.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
> >>
> >> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented folks try
> >> to
> >> attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen in CSMA, even seen
> >> people hunt down others health concerns and try to use that in their
> >> trolling.
> >
> > Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>
> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
--
Sandman[.net], I know you're trolling, but I'm playing along, it's fun!
Snit
> In article <C4164091.B143F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>>>
>>>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented
>>>> folks try to attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen
>>>> in CSMA, even seen people hunt down others health concerns and try
>>>> to use that in their trolling.
>>>
>>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>>
>> What has never happened to you - you have never been observant enough to see
>> what is going on in CSMA?
>
> Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
> What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
> you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
ever sunk so low... and you refuse to acknowledge their lies and their
trolling, perhaps out of outright fear of their behavior. When was the last
time you took one of those cretins to task?
And, yes, I know you will run from that question: to even acknowledge them
as cretins - to note their trolling and lying and personal attacks - that
would risk putting you on their "bad side", and you simply are not willing
to risk that.
And that completely answers your question.
--
BU__SH__
Snit
> In article <9q4Ij.12146$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Disgusting.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>>>
>>>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented folks try
>>>> to
>>>> attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen in CSMA, even seen
>>>> people hunt down others health concerns and try to use that in their
>>>> trolling.
>>>
>>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>>
>> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
>
> So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
>
You side with the trolls or simply ignore their personal attacks. For
whatever reason, likely fear of them, you refuse to even acknowledge their
behavior... and instead have been cowed into siding with them and lying
about me.
In other words you are helping them... which makes you only a shade better
than them.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
news:trollkiller-E636...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
> In article <9q4Ij.12146$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Disgusting.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>> >>
>> >> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented folks
>> >> try
>> >> to
>> >> attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen in CSMA, even
>> >> seen
>> >> people hunt down others health concerns and try to use that in their
>> >> trolling.
>> >
>> > Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>>
>> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
>
> So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
I wouldn't know since it has nothing to do with what I said. Are your only
arguements building Strawmen?
> Sandman[.net], I know you're trolling, but I'm playing along, it's fun!
I like to make people happy.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> >>
> >> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
> >
> > So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
> >
> You side with the trolls or simply ignore their personal attacks.
So me, being a "troll" in this scenario, would not be subject to
people disliking me as much as they dislike you? Why is that? Why are
you more disliked than these supposed "trolls"?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
> > What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
> > you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
>
> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
> ever sunk so low...
I won't take your word for that, though. I have posted a lot longer
than you but have not managed to amass the same amount of people
disliking me as are disliking you. If I'm the "dishonest troll" and
you're the honest and honorable person, how do you account for that?
Why is it that so many people, more than you could possibly write off
as being "trolls" dislike you - a person you claim to be "honest and
honorable", and why is that that so few people dislike me - a
"dishonest troll" according to you?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Well, neither did your post, so it's a fair game. :P
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >> > Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> >>
> >> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
> >
> > So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
>
> I wouldn't know since it has nothing to do with what I said. Are your only
> arguements building Strawmen?
>
> > Sandman[.net], I know you're trolling, but I'm playing along, it's fun!
>
> I like to make people happy.
But you shouldn't expose yourself so much. It becomes too easy...
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Hey, if you don't wasn't to address the issue, don't open the door. I
simply addressed the non reality of what you wrote about Snit not being
a perpetrator. I showed Snit preparing a new sock puppet for use in a
newsgroup based on people with health problems. Who do you know of,
other than Snit, that would do such a thing?
Snit
What you snipped:
-----
You side with the trolls or simply ignore their personal attacks. For
whatever reason, likely fear of them, you refuse to even acknowledge their
behavior... and instead have been cowed into siding with them and lying
about me.
In other words you are helping them... which makes you only a shade better
than them.
-----
Can you give an honest answer now?
Snit
Before your dishonest snipping:
-----
I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
ever sunk so low... and you refuse to acknowledge their lies and their
trolling, perhaps out of outright fear of their behavior. When was the last
time you took one of those cretins to task?
And, yes, I know you will run from that question: to even acknowledge them
as cretins - to note their trolling and lying and personal attacks - that
would risk putting you on their "bad side", and you simply are not willing
to risk that.
And that completely answers your question.
-----
Can you give an honest answer now?
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
> >>> What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
> >>> you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
> >>
> >> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
> >> ever sunk so low...
> >
> > I won't take your word for that, though. I have posted a lot longer
> > than you but have not managed to amass the same amount of people
> > disliking me as are disliking you. If I'm the "dishonest troll" and
> > you're the honest and honorable person, how do you account for that?
> >
> > Why is it that so many people, more than you could possibly write off
> > as being "trolls" dislike you - a person you claim to be "honest and
> > honorable", and why is that that so few people dislike me - a
> > "dishonest troll" according to you?
No answer?
<snip>
I snipped content of this post as per Snits statement that
he does not require one to respond to every point in a post:
<C2577366.7EA08%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
"I have *never* said one is obligated to respond to every point in
a post or every question."
</snip>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-CDE153.17...@News.Individual.NET on 3/31/08 9:21 AM:
>
> > In article <C4164DF1.B1494%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> >>>>
> >>>> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
> >>>
> >>> So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
> >>>
> >> You side with the trolls or simply ignore their personal attacks.
> >
> > So me, being a "troll" in this scenario, would not be subject to
> > people disliking me as much as they dislike you? Why is that? Why are
> > you more disliked than these supposed "trolls"?
Well?
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
You and Sandman seem to fit that description.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
???
Grasping at straws - again?
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-526C42.17...@News.Individual.NET...
> > In article <Ni7Ij.27890$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> > Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> >> >>
> >> >> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
> >> >
> >> > So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
> >>
> >> I wouldn't know since it has nothing to do with what I said. Are your
> >> only
> >> arguements building Strawmen?
> >>
> >> > Sandman[.net], I know you're trolling, but I'm playing along, it's fun!
> >>
> >> I like to make people happy.
> >
> > But you shouldn't expose yourself so much. It becomes too easy...
>
> ???
>
> Grasping at straws - again?
Haha, what straws?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Yet it's only Snit that we find concrete proof of having done so.
Reality is not so bad... c'mon... give it a try.
Snit
> In article <C4164D99.B1493%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Before your dishonest snipping:
-----
I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
ever sunk so low... and you refuse to acknowledge their lies and their
trolling, perhaps out of outright fear of their behavior. When was the last
time you took one of those cretins to task?
And, yes, I know you will run from that question: to even acknowledge them
as cretins - to note their trolling and lying and personal attacks - that
would risk putting you on their "bad side", and you simply are not willing
to risk that.
And that completely answers your question.
Snit
> In article <C4164DF1.B1494%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
What you snipped:
-----
You side with the trolls or simply ignore their personal attacks. For
whatever reason, likely fear of them, you refuse to even acknowledge their
behavior... and instead have been cowed into siding with them and lying
about me.
In other words you are helping them... which makes you only a shade better
than them.
-----
Can you give an honest answer now?
--
Snit
Ni7Ij.27890$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net on 3/31/08 8:20 AM:
>
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-0E172F.16...@News.Individual.NET...
>> In article <9q4Ij.12146$9O....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
>> "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Disgusting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented folks try
>>>>> to attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen in CSMA, even seen
>>>>> people hunt down others health concerns and try to use that in their
>>>>> trolling.
>>>>
>>>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>>>
>>> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
>>
>> So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
>
> I wouldn't know since it has nothing to do with what I said. Are your only
> arguements building Strawmen?
No, he also snips and runs repeatedly and refuses to answer questions. And,
of course, unlike him I am happy to support my accusations.
Currently Sandman is running from the fact that he refuses to acknowledge
the "perpetrators" and even sometimes joins in with their repulsive behavior
(though I do not believe he has sunk to the depths of the truly sick
"perpetrators"). I believe it is out of fear - Sandman fears saying
anything against them or their "friends". Look at how Sandman was trying to
defend Wally's absurd ignorance about basic set theory ({0} is *not* a
subset of integers 1 through 10... this is just a fact!).
I am not saying Wally is one of those who belittles people for health
issues, skin color, religion, etc., but he often sides with those who do act
in such ways and Sandman knows this (perhaps Wally fears to stand up against
them as well). To take "my" side (the side of truth) and go against Wally
would be to risk the wrath of the lowest of the low... and Sandman is not
willing to do that. Watch as he repeatedly snips any comments about this -
he is afraid.
>> Sandman[.net], I know you're trolling, but I'm playing along, it's fun!
>
> I like to make people happy.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't know since it has nothing to do with what I said. Are your only
> > arguements building Strawmen?
>
> No, he also snips and runs repeatedly and refuses to answer questions.
As opposed to you that answers all questions, huh? Haha! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Before Sandman's snipping:
-----
No, he also snips and runs repeatedly and refuses to answer
questions. And, of course, unlike him I am happy to support
my accusations.
Currently Sandman is running from the fact that he refuses to
acknowledge the "perpetrators" and even sometimes joins in
with their repulsive behavior (though I do not believe he has
sunk to the depths of the truly sick "perpetrators"). I
believe it is out of fear - Sandman fears saying anything
against them or their "friends". Look at how Sandman was
trying to defend Wally's absurd ignorance about basic set
theory ({0} is *not* a subset of integers 1 through 10...
this is just a fact!).
I am not saying Wally is one of those who belittles people
for health issues, skin color, religion, etc., but he often
sides with those who do act in such ways and Sandman knows
this (perhaps Wally fears to stand up against them as well).
To take "my" side (the side of truth) and go against Wally
would be to risk the wrath of the lowest of the low... and
Sandman is not willing to do that. Watch as he repeatedly
snips any comments about this - he is afraid.
-----
Once again he shows how predictable he is - and how right I am about him.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> No, he also snips and runs repeatedly and refuses to answer questions.
> >
> > As opposed to you that answers all questions, huh? Haha! :-D
>
> Before Sandman's snipping
And you didn't answer the question! Haha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C4166BAF.B1517%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Before Sandman's snipping:
-----
No, he also snips and runs repeatedly and refuses to answer
questions. And, of course, unlike him I am happy to support
my accusations.
Currently Sandman is running from the fact that he refuses to
acknowledge the "perpetrators" and even sometimes joins in
with their repulsive behavior (though I do not believe he has
sunk to the depths of the truly sick "perpetrators"). I
believe it is out of fear - Sandman fears saying anything
against them or their "friends". Look at how Sandman was
trying to defend Wally's absurd ignorance about basic set
theory ({0} is *not* a subset of integers 1 through 10...
this is just a fact!).
I am not saying Wally is one of those who belittles people
for health issues, skin color, religion, etc., but he often
sides with those who do act in such ways and Sandman knows
this (perhaps Wally fears to stand up against them as well).
To take "my" side (the side of truth) and go against Wally
would be to risk the wrath of the lowest of the low... and
Sandman is not willing to do that. Watch as he repeatedly
snips any comments about this - he is afraid.
Snit
> In article <C4164D99.B1493%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
>>> What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
>>> you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
>>
>> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
>> ever sunk so low...
>
> I won't take your word for that, though.
If you will not take my word then why even ask?
> I have posted a lot longer than you
I would love to see you try to support this. Hint: you will not.
> but have not managed to amass the same amount of people
> disliking me as are disliking you.
Again you will offer no support... though you can show you do more quote
scavenging that I do.
> If I'm the "dishonest troll"
There is no "if". You clearly are. This is not a point that is worthy of
debate.
> and you're the honest and honorable person, how do you account for that?
I have no need to "account" for your unsupported claims and accusations -
that is your job.
> Why is it that so many people, more than you could possibly write off
> as being "trolls" dislike you - a person you claim to be "honest and
> honorable", and why is that that so few people dislike me - a
> "dishonest troll" according to you?
Again you make all sorts of accusations. And offer not a shred of support.
The best "support" you can find is to show you and your co-trolls can quote
scavenge. Who cares?
The question is not who is liked or who is not liked or who can amass the
greatest number of quotes from people to try to support such irrelevant BS -
the question is our behavior. And yours is not honest and honorable: look
at how you tried to defend Wally's ignorant claims about {0} being a subset
of integers 1 through 10. You even lied and claimed *I* agreed with his
ignorant BS ... and your "evidence" was to take a single word of mine out of
context - you repeatedly snipped the context where I explained my views.
But you are afraid to admit that Wally is flat out wrong - Wally and the
"perpetrators" of CSMA often side together (even if Wally does not join them
in their most despicable actions). For you to go against Wally (especially
as he spews lies about me and as I point out his ignorance) would be to risk
the wrath of the very people you seem so proud do not "dislike" you. Of
course they do not speak poorly of you or anyone else they have cowed.
Notice how many times you snipped and ran - scared as a bunny - when I asked
you about Wally's ignorant claims.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
PeterBP
> Disgusting.
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
Divide number of participating hackers with total number of hackers
worldwide.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
PeterBP
> In article <C4164091.B143F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
> >>>
> >>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented
> >>> folks try to attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen
> >>> in CSMA, even seen people hunt down others health concerns and try
> >>> to use that in their trolling.
> >>
> >> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> >
> > What has never happened to you
>
> Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
> What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
> you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
>
>
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]
And the snit/sandman circus continues.
Please for the sake of humanity find something more constructive to
spend your time on. Even flaming in alt-atheism makes this look good in
comparison.
Snit
3/31/08 11:28 AM:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C4164091.B143F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented
>>>>> folks try to attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen
>>>>> in CSMA, even seen people hunt down others health concerns and try
>>>>> to use that in their trolling.
>>>>
>>>> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
>>>
>>> What has never happened to you
>>
>> Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
>> What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
>> you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sandman[.net]
>
> And the snit/sandman circus continues.
>
> Please for the sake of humanity find something more constructive to
> spend your time on. Even flaming in alt-atheism makes this look good in
> comparison.
Other than the fact I respond to Sandman's trolling do you have any examples
in our current debates where you think I did something wrong?
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Mayor of R'lyeh
>Mayor Of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Disgusting.
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>
>Divide number of participating hackers with total number of hackers
>worldwide.
That's like trying to excuse housebreakers in general by pointing out
that only a small group of them set fire to the houses they rob. Scum
is scum.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
> >>> What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
> >>> you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
> >>
> >> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
> >> ever sunk so low...
> >
> > I won't take your word for that, though.
>
> If you will not take my word then why even ask?
I never asked you about who "ever sunk so low".
> > I have posted a lot longer than you
>
> I would love to see you try to support this. Hint: you will not.
In CSMA, that is.
> > but have not managed to amass the same amount of people
> > disliking me as are disliking you.
>
> Again you will offer no support... though you can show you do more quote
> scavenging that I do.
Are you saying that quotes from people expressing their dislike about
you does not constitute proof that you are disliked? What would you
consider to be proof of people disliking you from a historical point
of view?
> > If I'm the "dishonest troll"
>
> There is no "if". You clearly are. This is not a point that is worthy of
> debate.
Unsupported name-calling duly noted.
> > and you're the honest and honorable person, how do you account for that?
>
> I have no need to "account" for your unsupported claims and accusations -
> that is your job.
That wasn't my question.
> > Why is it that so many people, more than you could possibly write off
> > as being "trolls" dislike you - a person you claim to be "honest and
> > honorable", and why is that that so few people dislike me - a
> > "dishonest troll" according to you?
>
> Again you make all sorts of accusations. And offer not a shred of support.
Apart from the onslaught of support I've shown in the past, you mean?
> The best "support" you can find is to show you and your co-trolls can quote
> scavenge. Who cares?
Who are my co-trolls? And isn't it ironic that you also tried to
quote-scavange and yet couldn't find as many people disliking me or
anytone else as there are quotes from people disliking you?
> The question is not who is liked or who is not liked
That was actually my question.
> or who can amass the
> greatest number of quotes from people to try to support such irrelevant BS
So why did you try to "amass" quotes to just find out that you
couldn't find as many?
> the question is our behavior. And yours is not honest and honorable
Luckily, you're the arbiter of that.
> look
> at how you tried to defend Wally's ignorant claims about {0} being a subset
> of integers 1 through 10.
Seeing that I never did any such thing, you just lied again. Will you
apologize and admit to your mistake? No, you will not.
> You even lied and claimed *I* agreed with his
> ignorant BS ... and your "evidence" was to take a single word of mine out of
> context - you repeatedly snipped the context where I explained my views.
Sounds more lke when you ignore everything I write. :-D
<snip rest of Snits Wallyobsession>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <C4164091.B143F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed - that is repulsive. Sadly I have seen similar demented
> > >>> folks try to attack people in anxiety disorder groups or, as seen
> > >>> in CSMA, even seen people hunt down others health concerns and try
> > >>> to use that in their trolling.
> > >>
> > >> Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> > >
> > > What has never happened to you
> >
> > Attacked me based on something like my health or anything similar.
> > What is it that you do differently than me that make people dislike
> > you so much that they do this to you but not to me?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sandman[.net]
>
> And the snit/sandman circus continues.
>
> Please for the sake of humanity find something more constructive to
> spend your time on. Even flaming in alt-atheism makes this look good in
> comparison.
Yeah, you're right. I'm bored... :(
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>>>> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA have
>>>> ever sunk so low...
>>>
>>> I won't take your word for that, though.
>>
>> If you will not take my word then why even ask?
>
> I never asked you about who "ever sunk so low".
Nor do you need to - you know. And you know who sides with those people,
hence the reason you absolutely refuse to say such simple things as *of
course* {0} is not in a subset of integers 1 through 10... and of course
Wally was flat our wrong about even basic set theory. You won't say that
because he often aligns himself with those who "sink so low" and you are not
willing to oppose that group.
In fact you run whenever this topic is brought up. The very mention of it
is beyond your ability to quote - that is how much they have you cowed.
Then you pretend you do not know why they target me and not you. That is
dishonest of you, Sandman.
...
> Are you saying that quotes from people expressing their dislike about
> you does not constitute proof that you are disliked? What would you
> consider to be proof of people disliking you from a historical point
> of view?
I am saying quote scavenging "contests" are silly. Here: I grant that you
are a better quote scavenger than I am - or at least than I care to be. You
win... I shall not even enter the contest: let us both acknowledge that you
can (and are willing to) dredge up more disparaging quotes than I am.
OK, now that your quote scavenging BS is handled, are you willing to
actually get back to the topic of *behavior* and not of side issues such as
quote scavenging?
<snip more comments about Sandman's splendid quote scavenging abilities, his
dishonest denials of his behavior, etc.>
...
>> You even lied and claimed *I* agreed with his
>> ignorant BS ... and your "evidence" was to take a single word of mine out of
>> context - you repeatedly snipped the context where I explained my views.
>
> Sounds more lke when you ignore everything I write. :-D
Nope: it is when you took the word "right:", with the colon, out of context.
Easy to show if you want me to.
> <snip rest of Snits Wallyobsession>
What you snipped:
-----
But you are afraid to admit that Wally is flat out wrong -
Wally and the "perpetrators" of CSMA often side together
(even if Wally does not join them in their most despicable
actions). For you to go against Wally (especially as he
spews lies about me and as I point out his ignorance) would
be to risk the wrath of the very people you seem so proud do
not "dislike" you. Of course they do not speak poorly of you
or anyone else they have cowed. Notice how many times you
snipped and ran - scared as a bunny - when I asked you about
Wally's ignorant claims.
-----
Notice how you repeatedly run from such information. You prove me right
about you over and over and over and over.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
Show the proof.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
HA!! The straws from the Strawmen you're so fond of building.
Snit
BqbIj.23742$Er2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 3/31/08 1:02 PM:
>>>> Hey, if you don't wasn't to address the issue, don't open the door. I
>>>> simply addressed the non reality of what you wrote about Snit not being
>>>> a perpetrator. I showed Snit preparing a new sock puppet for use in a
>>>> newsgroup based on people with health problems. Who do you know of,
>>>> other than Snit, that would do such a thing?
>>>
>>> You and Sandman seem to fit that description.
>>
>> Yet it's only Snit that we find concrete proof of having done so.
>> Reality is not so bad... c'mon... give it a try.
>
> Show the proof.
Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock puppet
for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"... though I did
once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a group *by mistake* and
then told people about the mistake. I had used that name elsewhere and
simply forgot to switch the name back in an email client...
... and, of course, that was done *years* ago in *another* forum and is 100%
irrelevant to anything to do with CSMA. Those that focus and lie about such
things are clearly showing their own lack of morals and desperation to not
have their own relevant and recent actions looked at.
Check out my recent posts where I responded by reporting someone to their
ISP - those were in response to truly despicable actions.
--
BU__SH__
Sandman
"The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-966201.18...@News.Individual.NET...
> > In article <7f8Ij.25376$dT.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> > "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> >> news:mr-526C42.17...@News.Individual.NET...
> >> > In article <Ni7Ij.27890$rC6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> >> > "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> > Has never happened me. Why you and not me?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are a perpetrator, he is not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So "perpetrators" are not as disliked as Michael? Why is that?
> >> >>
> >> >> I wouldn't know since it has nothing to do with what I said. Are your
> >> >> only
> >> >> arguements building Strawmen?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Sandman[.net], I know you're trolling, but I'm playing along, it's
> >> >> > fun!
> >> >>
> >> >> I like to make people happy.
> >> >
> >> > But you shouldn't expose yourself so much. It becomes too easy...
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> Grasping at straws - again?
> >
> > Haha, what straws?
>
> HA!! The straws from the Strawmen you're so fond of building.
See, no straws! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA
> >>>> have
> >>>> ever sunk so low...
> >>>
> >>> I won't take your word for that, though.
> >>
> >> If you will not take my word then why even ask?
> >
> > I never asked you about who "ever sunk so low".
>
> Nor do you need to - you know.
Another unsupported claim.
> And you know who sides with those people,
> hence the reason you absolutely refuse to say such simple things as *of
> course* {0} is not in a subset of integers 1 through 10... and of course
> Wally was flat our wrong about even basic set theory. You won't say that
> because he often aligns himself with those who "sink so low" and you are not
> willing to oppose that group.
>
> In fact you run whenever this topic is brought up.
You mean I don't take part in your obsession with incest, subsets and
Wally? Why, that would be correct.
> The very mention of it
> is beyond your ability to quote - that is how much they have you cowed.
> Then you pretend you do not know why they target me and not you. That is
> dishonest of you, Sandman.
I don't know why so many target you and none target me. Especially
when you claim I'm such a bad person. Logically, bad people should be
targeted a lot more than good people.
> > Are you saying that quotes from people expressing their dislike about
> > you does not constitute proof that you are disliked? What would you
> > consider to be proof of people disliking you from a historical point
> > of view?
>
> I am saying quote scavenging "contests" are silly.
Whatever that means. MIght be because you lost it?
> Here: I grant that you
> are a better quote scavenger than I am
What quotes have I scavenged, Michael? Surely you're not making
unsupported claims again?
> or at least than I care to be. You
> win... I shall not even enter the contest: let us both acknowledge that you
> can (and are willing to) dredge up more disparaging quotes than I am.
>
> OK, now that your quote scavenging BS is handled, are you willing to
> actually get back to the topic of *behavior* and not of side issues such as
> quote scavenging?
What "quote scavenging BS" of mine are you in reference to?
> <snip more comments about Sandman's splendid quote scavenging abilities, his
> dishonest denials of his behavior, etc.>
Ah, dishonestly snipping and running. Right?
> > Sounds more lke when you ignore everything I write. :-D
>
> Nope: it is when you took the word "right:", with the colon, out of context.
> Easy to show if you want me to.
You're talking about something Wally has said. Please keep your
unsupported accusations in order.
> > <snip rest of Snits Wallyobsession>
>
> What you snipped:
> -----
> But you are afraid to admit that Wally is flat out wrong -
> Wally and the "perpetrators" of CSMA often side together
> (even if Wally does not join them in their most despicable
> actions). For you to go against Wally (especially as he
> spews lies about me and as I point out his ignorance) would
> be to risk the wrath of the very people you seem so proud do
> not "dislike" you. Of course they do not speak poorly of you
> or anyone else they have cowed. Notice how many times you
> snipped and ran - scared as a bunny - when I asked you about
> Wally's ignorant claims.
> -----
>
> Notice how you repeatedly run from such information. You prove me right
> about you over and over and over and over.
That is, if you aimed to prove that I don't care about your obsessions.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
If only it was the last straw.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Snit
> In article <C41687B2.B1551%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I have been posting online for years - only a couple cretins on CSMA
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> ever sunk so low...
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't take your word for that, though.
>>>>
>>>> If you will not take my word then why even ask?
>>>
>>> I never asked you about who "ever sunk so low".
>>
>> Nor do you need to - you know.
>
> Another unsupported claim.
The people who have you cowed - Wally being one of them. Notice how you
refuse to even say that {0} is *not* a subset of the integers 1 through
10... you are so cowed by Wally and those he co-trolls with that you simply
will not state such an obvious fact for fear of disagreeing with Wally's BS.
>> And you know who sides with those people, hence the reason you absolutely
>> refuse to say such simple things as *of course* {0} is not in a subset of
>> integers 1 through 10... and of course Wally was flat our wrong about even
>> basic set theory. You won't say that because he often aligns himself with
>> those who "sink so low" and you are not willing to oppose that group.
>>
>> In fact you run whenever this topic is brought up.
>
> You mean I don't take part in your obsession with incest, subsets and
> Wally?
I mean what I said, not your absurd lies, Sandman.
>> The very mention of it is beyond your ability to quote - that is how much
>> they have you cowed. Then you pretend you do not know why they target me and
>> not you. That is dishonest of you, Sandman.
>
> I don't know why so many target you and none target me. Especially
> when you claim I'm such a bad person. Logically, bad people should be
> targeted a lot more than good people.
What makes you think those who "target" people target "bad" people more?
Seems they would go after the innocent.
In the case of the recent debate with Wally you showed why the "bad people"
do not target you: you are so cowed by the least offensive of their members
as to not be willing to state the fact that {0} is *not* a subset of the
integers 1 through 10 simply because it is contrary to what that *one* "bad"
person said.
<snip more on Sandman's quote scavenging powers! Super Sandman the
Scavanger!>
>> Nope: it is when you took the word "right:", with the colon, out of context.
>> Easy to show if you want me to.
>
> You're talking about something Wally has said.
Ah, it was Wally who did that bit of dishonest snipping... you merely jumped
in to support his lie and repeatedly insisted his claims were not
"ignorant", even though they clearly were.
>>> <snip rest of Snits Wallyobsession>
>>
>> What you snipped:
>> -----
>> But you are afraid to admit that Wally is flat out wrong -
>> Wally and the "perpetrators" of CSMA often side together
>> (even if Wally does not join them in their most despicable
>> actions). For you to go against Wally (especially as he
>> spews lies about me and as I point out his ignorance) would
>> be to risk the wrath of the very people you seem so proud do
>> not "dislike" you. Of course they do not speak poorly of you
>> or anyone else they have cowed. Notice how many times you
>> snipped and ran - scared as a bunny - when I asked you about
>> Wally's ignorant claims.
>> -----
>>
>> Notice how you repeatedly run from such information. You prove me right
>> about you over and over and over and over.
>
> That is, if you aimed to prove that I don't care about your obsessions.
Oh, I am not obsessed with you being cowed - I am just amused by how much
you run from the topic. Come on, Sandman: just try to admit to the fact
that, contrary to Wally's claims, {0} is *not* a subset of the integers 1
through 10.
You can't: you simply are too cowed by he and the "bad people" you do not
want to speak poorly of you.
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Steve Carroll
Why not learn to use google and punch in the messageID I just gave here?
Then go try to find an instance of Brock McNuggets prior to that date.
Also, look at Snit's followup for his new lie here he just told to you:
"though I did once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a
group *by mistake* and then told people about the mistake. "
Notice how Snit said he posted as Brock McNuggets "once"... and that it
was done "*by mistake*". So why did Snit repeat the "mistake" in that ng
(google proves this) and then repeat it again in this one? His BS
doesn't pass the laugh test. Maybe you're that stupid but I'm not.
The bottom line is he doesn't know how to to anything but lie... even
when he is flat out busted. Apparently he hasn't figured out that one
lie will spawn more (like the new lie he told you here today). Watch for
more spin from him... it's all he has cuz reality will no longer have
anything to do with him.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> I never asked you about who "ever sunk so low".
> >>
> >> Nor do you need to - you know.
> >
> > Another unsupported claim.
>
> The people who have you cowed - Wally being one of them.
Where is your support that I "know" something about Wally "every
sinking so low"?
> Notice how you
> refuse to even say that {0} is *not* a subset of the integers 1 through
> 10...
I don't care about your incest and subset obsession. Respect that.
> > I don't know why so many target you and none target me. Especially
> > when you claim I'm such a bad person. Logically, bad people should be
> > targeted a lot more than good people.
>
> What makes you think those who "target" people target "bad" people more?
Trolls are made fun of and exposed on a regular basis here in csma.
Surely you haven't missed that?
> Seems they would go after the innocent.
Why would anyone target innocent people? What's the motive behind that?
> In the case of the recent debate with Wally you showed why the "bad people"
> do not target you: you are so cowed by the least offensive of their members
> as to not be willing to state the fact that {0} is *not* a subset of the
> integers 1 through 10 simply because it is contrary to what that *one* "bad"
> person said.
Whatever that lie has to do with the above.
> <snip more on Sandman's quote scavenging powers! Super Sandman the
> Scavanger!>
Dishonestly snipping and running, I see.
> >> Nope: it is when you took the word "right:", with the colon, out of
> >> context.
> >> Easy to show if you want me to.
> >
> > You're talking about something Wally has said.
>
> Ah, it was Wally who did that bit of dishonest snipping... you merely jumped
> in to support his lie and repeatedly insisted his claims were not
> "ignorant", even though they clearly were.
I have never done any such thing. Yet another unsupported claim of
yours.
> >>> <snip rest of Snits Wallyobsession>
> >>
> >> What you snipped:
> >> -----
> >> But you are afraid to admit that Wally is flat out wrong -
> >> Wally and the "perpetrators" of CSMA often side together
> >> (even if Wally does not join them in their most despicable
> >> actions). For you to go against Wally (especially as he
> >> spews lies about me and as I point out his ignorance) would
> >> be to risk the wrath of the very people you seem so proud do
> >> not "dislike" you. Of course they do not speak poorly of you
> >> or anyone else they have cowed. Notice how many times you
> >> snipped and ran - scared as a bunny - when I asked you about
> >> Wally's ignorant claims.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Notice how you repeatedly run from such information. You prove me right
> >> about you over and over and over and over.
> >
> > That is, if you aimed to prove that I don't care about your obsessions.
>
> Oh, I am not obsessed with you being cowed - I am just amused by how much
> you run from the topic. Come on, Sandman: just try to admit to the fact
> that, contrary to Wally's claims, {0} is *not* a subset of the integers 1
> through 10.
I don't care.
> You can't: you simply are too cowed by he and the "bad people" you do not
> want to speak poorly of you.
I don't seem to be able to get anyone to speak poorly of me, it seems.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your dodging is noted. Oh, and you *still* have not been willing to admit
that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are completely
cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
I only work for pay. You do all those manipulations and post them here.
Then I will be able to judge if you are telling the truth or not.
> "though I did once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a
> group *by mistake* and then told people about the mistake. "
>
>
> Notice how Snit said he posted as Brock McNuggets "once"... and that it
> was done "*by mistake*". So why did Snit repeat the "mistake" in that ng
> (google proves this) and then repeat it again in this one? His BS
> doesn't pass the laugh test. Maybe you're that stupid but I'm not.
By insinuating I'm stupid, does not make your invalid points valid.
Perhaps I don't have an axe to grind. Actually, I do have an axe to grind.
I am going to involk a Demon to make Scumbag Joeys aquaintence. He has
until midnight April 5th to appologize to me and the group, for his boorish
and uncalled for behavior.
> The bottom line is he doesn't know how to to anything but lie... even
> when he is flat out busted. Apparently he hasn't figured out that one
> lie will spawn more (like the new lie he told you here today). Watch for
> more spin from him... it's all he has cuz reality will no longer have
> anything to do with him.
I haven't seen any lies - therefore - none exist.
Snit
BqbIj.23742$Er2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 3/31/08 1:02 PM:
>>>> Hey, if you don't wasn't to address the issue, don't open the door. I
>>>> simply addressed the non reality of what you wrote about Snit not being
>>>> a perpetrator. I showed Snit preparing a new sock puppet for use in a
>>>> newsgroup based on people with health problems. Who do you know of,
>>>> other than Snit, that would do such a thing?
>>>
>>> You and Sandman seem to fit that description.
>>
>> Yet it's only Snit that we find concrete proof of having done so.
>> Reality is not so bad... c'mon... give it a try.
>
> Show the proof.
Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock puppet
for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"... though I did
once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a group *by mistake* and
then told people about the mistake. I had used that name elsewhere and
simply forgot to switch the name back in an email client...
... and, of course, that was done *years* ago in *another* forum and is 100%
irrelevant to anything to do with CSMA. Those that focus and lie about such
things are clearly showing their own lack of morals and desperation to not
have their own relevant and recent actions looked at.
Check out my recent posts where I responded by reporting someone to their
ISP - those were in response to truly despicable actions.
=========FOLLOW UP=========
Sigh - I am being sucked back into defending myself from Steve Carroll who
obsessively dredges up posts from *years* in the past and from other groups.
Yes, he is right that I posted as "Brock McNuggets" into ASAP on more than
one occasion - being that it was in *2002* I frankly did not recall the
details. Yes: 2002. That long ago.
I just googled up my posts and in my "Brock McNuggets" posts to ASAP I
pointed to my website, signed my name as "snit", and otherwise made it very,
very clear who I was. For Steve to claim that I was posting with a "sock
puppet" - an alternate name to hide who I was - is an outright lie on his
part. Yes, as is his norm, Steve Carroll has dredged up posts from *years*
past to another group and is lying about them: in this case posts about a
phobia I *then* had and other health concerns I was struggling with at the
time - health concerns that many would find to be embarrassing (dealing with
an anxiety disorder).
Sadly Steve and those who act much like him (Tim Adams for one) have many
people in CSMA cowed - they are not willing to stand up against such
despicable dishonesty. Look at Wally - he actively supports both Steve and
Tim in much of their trolling. Same with Sandman (though not to the extent
that Wally does).
As an example I challenge both Wally and Sandman to take a stand and state,
for the record, that they find Steve's actions of dredging up posts from
2002 from another group and then lying about them to be wrong.
It, sadly, is completely predictable that *neither* will be willing to.
Both are completely cowed - fearful of how they would be treated by those
Sandman calls the "bad people".
And that is enough on the topic. Other than to note my predictions about
Wally and Sandman being correct (they will be) there is nothing else that I
have a need to say on this - at least not now. I have no desire to be
caught up in one of Steve's little games again... I have let myself get
caught in his BS too many times.
--
BU__SH__
PeterBP
Try Ruby and extend with Rails. Excellent programming language, open,
exciting in ways java never were, and you can actually make money with
it. Whats not to like?
PeterBP
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:28:34 +0200, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>
> >Mayor Of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Disgusting.
> >>
> >> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
> >
> >Divide number of participating hackers with total number of hackers
> >worldwide.
>
> That's like trying to excuse housebreakers in general by pointing out
> that only a small group of them set fire to the houses they rob. Scum
> is scum.
Generalizations are generalizations. Don't let the annoying details get
in the way of a good smear, eh?
Oh yeah, judge not lest ye be be judged yerself, right?
Mayor of R'lyeh
>Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:28:34 +0200, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>>
>> >Mayor Of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Disgusting.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>> >
>> >Divide number of participating hackers with total number of hackers
>> >worldwide.
>>
>> That's like trying to excuse housebreakers in general by pointing out
>> that only a small group of them set fire to the houses they rob. Scum
>> is scum.
>
>Generalizations are generalizations. Don't let the annoying details get
>in the way of a good smear, eh?
Much like housebreakers, hackers are, by definition, criminals. If you
consider telling the truth to be a smear so be it.
>Oh yeah, judge not lest ye be be judged yerself, right?
LOL! Do you really think Christians aren't supposed to have any
standards? That we're supposed to turn over our children to known
child molesters fors babysittings? to let known thieves 'guard' our
worldly goods? all in the name of 'not judging'?
If you had anything more than a comic book level of understanding
you'd know that the phrase you're referencing is cherry picked from a
passage making the point that God will judge you with the standards
that you judge others with. Its a warning to use the standards God
sets for to use not a call to be some brainless sap who never makes
any kind of judgment.
And God doesn't like criminals so I'm on pretty firm ground even if
you lack the understanding of the topic to realize that
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Running away as usual.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
I'm deeply entrenched in php, unfortunately. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> Your dodging is noted. Oh, and you *still* have not been willing to admit
>> that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are completely
>> cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
>> pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
>
> Running away as usual.
So stop. Seriously, if you are not able to stop yourself from "running
away" then you have serious issues.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-6A78BC.06...@News.Individual.NET on 3/31/08 10:50 PM:
>
> >> Your dodging is noted. Oh, and you *still* have not been willing to admit
> >> that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are completely
> >> cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
> >> pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
> >
> > Running away as usual.
>
> So stop. Seriously, if you are not able to stop yourself from "running
> away" then you have serious issues.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [X] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [X] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Projection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire essays could be written on this particular criteria. Suffice it
to say, that a troll is often eager to project his own shortcomings
upon others so his own will be less obvious. For instance, a troll is
often found accusing its "opponents" of the things he himself is being
accused of, often using the same phrasing. A good example of this is
Michael Glassers "Snit Circus", a term coined by Sandman [1]İto
describe the never ending loop of Snit trolling most threads Michael
Glasser joins end up in. Michael himself has since then tried to label
his opponents posts as a circus, calling them troll and picking up
current phrases used to describe him. The troll does this so that a
casual reader who isn't informed will see these labels in reference to
not only the trolls actions, but also his opponents actions.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c374e5a389
1fa0b>
12. Role Reversal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Role Reversal, in short, means that the troll interpretes what was
written to be about the writer, not the troll.
A good example of this is where Snit interpretes a post [1] from
Sandman to be about Sandman and not about Snit.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/20d1fa468b8
5bec8>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C4171683.B17E9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-6A78BC.06...@News.Individual.NET on 3/31/08 10:50 PM:
>>
>>>> Your dodging is noted. Oh, and you *still* have not been willing to admit
>>>> that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are completely
>>>> cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
>>>> pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
>>>
>>> Running away as usual.
>>
>> So stop. Seriously, if you are not able to stop yourself from "running
>> away" then you have serious issues.
>
> Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
One: your list of "objective" criteria is not mine. It is yours. You are
lying again.
Two: as predicted you are *still* running from a simple admission that {0}
is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are completely
cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
At least you admitted it is "usual" for you to be "running away".
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> Your dodging is noted. Oh, and you *still* have not been willing to
> >>>> admit
> >>>> that {0} is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are
> >>>> completely
> >>>> cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
> >>>> pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
> >>>
> >>> Running away as usual.
> >>
> >> So stop. Seriously, if you are not able to stop yourself from "running
> >> away" then you have serious issues.
> >
> > Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
>
> One: your list of "objective" criteria is not mine. It is yours. You are
> lying again.
One: It is requested by you.
Two: I have never claimed that it is yours.
> Two: as predicted you are *still* running from a simple admission that {0}
> is not a subset of the integers 1 through 10. You are completely
> cowed by the folks you have called the "bad people". Then you lie and
> pretend you do not know why they do not speak poorly of you.
When you start answering my questions, maybe I'll answer yours?
--
Sandman[.net]
John C. Randolph
<mayor.o...@gmail.com> said:
> Disgusting.
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
First, they weren't hackers. What they did had nothing to do with
writing code or breaching security. Secondly, it's more than
disgusting, it's probably a felony.
-jcr
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is fuc...@demoncaller.com> stated in post
> BqbIj.23742$Er2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 3/31/08 1:02 PM:
>
> >>>> Hey, if you don't wasn't to address the issue, don't open the door. I
> >>>> simply addressed the non reality of what you wrote about Snit not being
> >>>> a perpetrator. I showed Snit preparing a new sock puppet for use in a
> >>>> newsgroup based on people with health problems. Who do you know of,
> >>>> other than Snit, that would do such a thing?
> >>>
> >>> You and Sandman seem to fit that description.
> >>
> >> Yet it's only Snit that we find concrete proof of having done so.
> >> Reality is not so bad... c'mon... give it a try.
> >
> > Show the proof.
>
> Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock puppet
> for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"... though I did
> once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a group *by mistake* and
> then told people about the mistake. I had used that name elsewhere and
> simply forgot to switch the name back in an email client...
Yet the google record proves that to be a LIE. Why is that michael?
>
> ... and, of course, that was done *years* ago in *another* forum and is 100%
> irrelevant to anything to do with CSMA.
Yet you recently brought the subject up YOURSELF when you complained about a
'troll' going to that group and instigating problems. why do I get the feeling
that the troll was using the handle 'Brock McNuggets'?
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
fibercut
That is what I am thinking also.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gg83v3pr25ss55kee...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 03:37:28 +0200, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>
>>Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:28:34 +0200, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>>>
>>> >Mayor Of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Disgusting.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>> >
> LOL! Do you really think Christians aren't supposed to have any
> standards? That we're supposed to turn over our children to known
> child molesters fors babysittings? to let known thieves 'guard' our
> worldly goods? all in the name of 'not judging'?
> If you had anything more than a comic book level of understanding
> you'd know that the phrase you're referencing is cherry picked from a
> passage making the point that God will judge you with the standards
> that you judge others with. Its a warning to use the standards God
> sets for to use not a call to be some brainless sap who never makes
> any kind of judgment.
> And God doesn't like criminals so I'm on pretty firm ground even if
> you lack the understanding of the topic to realize that
I beg to differ. God is not judgmental. In fact, if you believe in a
balanced universe, good and evil have equal weight. If you consider God as
the creator of all, it stands to reason that God and the Devil are one and
the same.
We are here only to provide entertainment.
There is no retribution.
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gg83v3pr25ss55kee...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 03:37:28 +0200, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>>
>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:28:34 +0200, a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Mayor Of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Disgusting.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy#
>>>> >
>>>> >snip
>
>> LOL! Do you really think Christians aren't supposed to have any
>> standards? That we're supposed to turn over our children to known
>> child molesters fors babysittings? to let known thieves 'guard' our
>> worldly goods? all in the name of 'not judging'?
>> If you had anything more than a comic book level of understanding
>> you'd know that the phrase you're referencing is cherry picked from a
>> passage making the point that God will judge you with the standards
>> that you judge others with. Its a warning to use the standards God
>> sets for to use not a call to be some brainless sap who never makes
>> any kind of judgment.
>> And God doesn't like criminals so I'm on pretty firm ground even if
>> you lack the understanding of the topic to realize that
>
>I beg to differ. God is not judgmental.
God is very judgemental. Perhaps you've heard of this place called
Hell?
> In fact, if you believe in a
>balanced universe, good and evil have equal weight. If you consider God as
>the creator of all, it stands to reason that God and the Devil are one and
>the same.
>We are here only to provide entertainment.
>There is no retribution.
>
Go play with your crystals and say 'Oooomm' some more, hippie.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008.
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-E8F431.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
4/1/08 3:26 AM:
>> Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock puppet
>> for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"... though I did
>> once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a group *by mistake* and
>> then told people about the mistake. I had used that name elsewhere and
>> simply forgot to switch the name back in an email client...
>
> Yet the google record proves that to be a LIE. Why is that michael?
>
>>
>> ... and, of course, that was done *years* ago in *another* forum and is 100%
>> irrelevant to anything to do with CSMA.
>
> Yet you recently brought the subject up YOURSELF when you complained about a
> 'troll' going to that group and instigating problems. why do I get the feeling
> that the troll was using the handle 'Brock McNuggets'?
I have since posted a full explanation. Did you see it? Oh, and are you
still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
Just curious.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-E8F431.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/1/08 3:26 AM:
>
> >> Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock puppet
> >> for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"... though I
> >> did
> >> once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a group *by mistake*
> >> and
> >> then told people about the mistake. I had used that name elsewhere and
> >> simply forgot to switch the name back in an email client...
> >
> > Yet the google record proves that to be a LIE. Why is that michael?
> >
> >>
> >> ... and, of course, that was done *years* ago in *another* forum and is
> >> 100%
> >> irrelevant to anything to do with CSMA.
> >
> > Yet you recently brought the subject up YOURSELF when you complained about
> > a
> > 'troll' going to that group and instigating problems. why do I get the
> > feeling
> > that the troll was using the handle 'Brock McNuggets'?
>
> I have since posted a full explanation.
Was this full explanation filled with lies like all of your other ones are?
> Did you see it?
Yes I did, and I saw it was filled with lies, just like I expected.
> Oh, and are you
> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
> Just curious.
Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
Snit
4/2/08 3:24 AM:
>> Oh, and are you
>> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
>> Just curious.
>
> Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
Differing views on sex and incest:
Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
You even claimed that your view was true based on the "definition" of sex
you believe in. Your define sex in a perverted way if, for you, it *must*
have all the "features" of incest.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
And Heaven also. But neither exists.
>> In fact, if you believe in a
>>balanced universe, good and evil have equal weight. If you consider God
>>as
>>the creator of all, it stands to reason that God and the Devil are one and
>>the same.
>>We are here only to provide entertainment.
>>There is no retribution.
>>
>
> Go play with your crystals and say 'Oooomm' some more, hippie.
I'm not now, nor ever was a Hippie. But I was a Bible scholar for years.
My studies showed me what a self serving crock of shit the Bible really is.
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
Are you ever in for a surprise!
>
>>> In fact, if you believe in a
>>>balanced universe, good and evil have equal weight. If you consider God
>>>as
>>>the creator of all, it stands to reason that God and the Devil are one and
>>>the same.
>>>We are here only to provide entertainment.
>>>There is no retribution.
>>>
>>
>> Go play with your crystals and say 'Oooomm' some more, hippie.
>
>I'm not now, nor ever was a Hippie.
You just play one on Usenet.
> But I was a Bible scholar for years.
>My studies showed me what a self serving crock of shit the Bible really is.
Actually you're expressing a very New Age, crystal hugging view of
God. And I'm sure that your Biblical 'scholarship' was on the same
level as your Mac 'scholarship. IOW right around Kindergarten level.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-95E841.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/2/08 3:24 AM:
>
> >> Oh, and are you
> >> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
> >> Just curious.
> >
> > Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
>
> Differing views on sex and incest:
> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
No references, since above is a prime example of creative snipping.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >And Heaven also. But neither exists.
>
> Are you ever in for a surprise!
According to whom?
> > But I was a Bible scholar for years.
> >My studies showed me what a self serving crock of shit the Bible really is.
>
> Actually you're expressing a very New Age, crystal hugging view of
> God. And I'm sure that your Biblical 'scholarship' was on the same
> level as your Mac 'scholarship. IOW right around Kindergarten level.
Mayor says to zara... Haha, priceless.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Nothing "creative" about it at all. Tim Adams has repeatedly insisted that
in his view sex must have all the features of incest. He, clearly, is not
speaking for others (I, for example, am sexually active but do not engage in
sex with that "feature".)
But to be completely fair: if Tim Adams will state that his previous claims
about sex requiring the "feature" of incest were incorrect I will certainly
accept his rescinding of his claims.
So, Tim, do you now think that sex must include all the features of incest?
Yes or no? Add some commentary if you think I am pushing you into a false
dichotomy.
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> Oh, and are you
> >>>> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of
> >>>> incest?
> >>>> Just curious.
> >>>
> >>> Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about
> >>> yourself.
> >>
> >> Differing views on sex and incest:
> >> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
> >> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
> >
> > No references, since above is a prime example of creative snipping.
>
> Nothing "creative" about it at all. Tim Adams has repeatedly insisted that
> in his view sex must have all the features of incest.
Just like you have claimed to eat dog shit to get attention, all with
a little creative snipping.
You forgot to add the references to your unsupported accusations, so I
snipped the rest of your post.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C41916F9.B1CEB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Oh, and are you
>>>>>> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of
>>>>>> incest?
>>>>>> Just curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Differing views on sex and incest:
>>>> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
>>>> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
>>>
>>> No references, since above is a prime example of creative snipping.
>>
>> Nothing "creative" about it at all. Tim Adams has repeatedly insisted that
>> in his view sex must have all the features of incest.
>
> Just like you have claimed to eat dog shit to get attention
I never made any such claim. You are lying.
> , all with
> a little creative snipping.
>
> You forgot to add the references to your unsupported accusations, so I
> snipped the rest of your post.
>
---------
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-BBCB0C.19...@News.Individual.NET on 4/2/08 11:13 AM:
> In article <C418F778.B1C8C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-95E841.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
>> 4/2/08 3:24 AM:
>>
>>>> Oh, and are you
>>>> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
>>>> Just curious.
>>>
>>> Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
>>
>> Differing views on sex and incest:
>> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
>> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
>
> No references, since above is a prime example of creative snipping.
Nothing "creative" about it at all. Tim Adams has repeatedly insisted that
in his view sex must have all the features of incest. He, clearly, is not
speaking for others (I, for example, am sexually active but do not engage in
sex with that "feature".)
But to be completely fair: if Tim Adams will state that his previous claims
about sex requiring the "feature" of incest were incorrect I will certainly
accept his rescinding of his claims.
So, Tim, do you now think that sex must include all the features of incest?
Yes or no? Add some commentary if you think I am pushing you into a false
dichotomy.
---------
You failed to given an honest answer with your first attempt. Will you
succeed now that I am giving you another chance?
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
No need for insults. If disagreement annoys you, perhaps you shouldn't be
involved here. I am by no means trying to convert you, like a maccie would
do. I am only stating my opinion, just as you very clearly stated yours..
FYI; My form of religion is very "old age". OTOH, it's your beliefs that
are in reality "modern" or "new age", going back only a couple of thousand
years. When I say beliefs, I mean the habit of crucifying, stoning, burning
at the stake, disemboweling, killing, etc., any who disagree with your form
of religion.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> Differing views on sex and incest:
> >>>> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
> >>>> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
> >>>
> >>> No references, since above is a prime example of creative snipping.
> >>
> >> Nothing "creative" about it at all. Tim Adams has repeatedly insisted that
> >> in his view sex must have all the features of incest.
> >
> > Just like you have claimed to eat dog shit to get attention
>
> I never made any such claim. You are lying.
I see you dishonestly edited my sentence to make it seem I said
something I did not. That is lying, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
The irony hangs in the air like the fog on a cool summer evening.
> I am by no means trying to convert you, like a maccie would
>do. I am only stating my opinion, just as you very clearly stated yours..
You stated yours in direct confrontation with mine. Another clue that
you are a New Age liberal. You think that you can criticize to your
heafrt's content but its an affront for anyone to return your fire.
>FYI; My form of religion is very "old age".
No it isn't. There's nothing 'old' about your beliefs unless you think
the 60's are 'old'.
> OTOH, it's your beliefs that
>are in reality "modern" or "new age", going back only a couple of thousand
>years. When I say beliefs, I mean the habit of crucifying,
A Roman execution method that had nothing to do with religion.
> stoning,
A Jewish execution method, not a Chrisitain one.
> burning at the stake,
A secular execution method employed by the Catholic Church because it
was common and it fit the Catholic Church's requirement that execution
methods spilt no blood.
>disemboweling,
Another secualr execution method that was not employed by the Church.
> killing, etc., any who disagree with your form of religion.
>
As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you need
to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans and
atheists are still doing it.
Snit
---------
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-BBCB0C.19...@News.Individual.NET on 4/2/08 11:13 AM:
> In article <C418F778.B1C8C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-95E841.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
>> 4/2/08 3:24 AM:
>>
>>>> Oh, and are you
>>>> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
>>>> Just curious.
>>>
>>> Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
>>
>> Differing views on sex and incest:
>> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
>> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
>
> No references, since above is a prime example of creative snipping.
Nothing "creative" about it at all. Tim Adams has repeatedly insisted that
in his view sex must have all the features of incest. He, clearly, is not
speaking for others (I, for example, am sexually active but do not engage in
sex with that "feature".)
But to be completely fair: if Tim Adams will state that his previous claims
about sex requiring the "feature" of incest were incorrect I will certainly
accept his rescinding of his claims.
So, Tim, do you now think that sex must include all the features of incest?
Yes or no? Add some commentary if you think I am pushing you into a false
dichotomy.
---------
You failed to given an honest answer with your first and second attempts.
Will you succeed now that I am giving you another chance?
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
A sidestep!!.
The irony was your first broadside "Go play with your crystals and say
'Oooomm' some more, hippie
>> I am by no means trying to convert you, like a maccie would
>>do. I am only stating my opinion, just as you very clearly stated yours..
>
> You stated yours in direct confrontation with mine.
So an opposite view is "confrontation" in your mind.
>Another clue that
> you are a New Age liberal. You think that you can criticize to your
> heafrt's content but its an affront for anyone to return your fire.
I welcome your criticism. But I don't see where I confronted or criticised
you. Perhaps you can "cherry pick" the statement that so incensed you.
>>FYI; My form of religion is very "old age".
>
> No it isn't. There's nothing 'old' about your beliefs unless you think
> the 60's are 'old'.
Right - because you say so.
>
>> OTOH, it's your beliefs that
>>are in reality "modern" or "new age", going back only a couple of thousand
>>years. When I say beliefs, I mean the habit of crucifying,
>
> A Roman execution method that had nothing to do with religion.
Wasn't Jesus crucified? I seem to remember it had something to do with
religion. But that can be circumvented by calling it a "political" act.
>> stoning,
>
> A Jewish execution method, not a Chrisitain one.
Jews believe in God. But I forget - they are all going to Hell because they
don't believe in JC as the Messaiah and are not members of the "true"
church.
>
>> burning at the stake,
>
> A secular execution method employed by the Catholic Church because it
> was common and it fit the Catholic Church's requirement that execution
> methods spilt no blood.
OKAY!!! That must make it right.
>>disemboweling,
>
> Another secualr execution method that was not employed by the Church.
By Church you mean ; not the "true" church.
>
>> killing, etc., any who disagree with your form of religion.
>>
> As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you need
> to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans and
> atheists are still doing it.
Isn't George Bush a Christian? How many deaths is he responsible for? I
can name dozens of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of God, in
the last hundred years alone.
> Why settle for the lesser evil?
> Cthulhu for president 2008.
Perhaps your prayer will come true.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:36:18 -0400, "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is
Telling the truth is not a sidestep.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I am by no means trying to convert you, like a maccie would
>>>>do. I am only stating my opinion, just as you very clearly stated yours..
>>>
>>> You stated yours in direct confrontation with mine.
>>
>>So an opposite view is "confrontation" in your mind.
In this place.
>>
>>
>>>Another clue that
>>> you are a New Age liberal. You think that you can criticize to your
>>> heafrt's content but its an affront for anyone to return your fire.
>>
>>I welcome your criticism. But I don't see where I confronted or criticised
>>you. Perhaps you can "cherry pick" the statement that so incensed you.
Coyness does not suit you.
>>
>>>>FYI; My form of religion is very "old age".
>>>
>>> No it isn't. There's nothing 'old' about your beliefs unless you think
>>> the 60's are 'old'.
>>
>>Right - because you say so.
No because that's how it is. Old pagan gods were very destructive,
even mean spirited. Read some Greek, Norse, etc mythology if you don't
believe me. The notion of God being some kind of mega sky hippie doing
nothing but passing out favors doesn't emerge until the drug induced
60's counterculture does.
>>
>>>
>>>> OTOH, it's your beliefs that
>>>>are in reality "modern" or "new age", going back only a couple of thousand
>>>>years. When I say beliefs, I mean the habit of crucifying,
>>>
>>> A Roman execution method that had nothing to do with religion.
>>
>>Wasn't Jesus crucified?
Yes. But it had nothing to do with religion. The Romans considered him
a threat to the Pax Romana. They used their usual execution method on
him. It had nothing to do with religion. The Romans had lined the Via
Appia with crucifixions from the army of Spartacus some 100 years
earlier, for example. The religious use of the cross as a symbol of
the triumph of life over death came later.
> I seem to remember it had something to do with
>>religion. But that can be circumvented by calling it a "political" act.
So you're confessing that you're knowledge in this area is *ahem*
limited. You didn't really need to do that. It was pretty obvious
already.
>>
>>>> stoning,
>>>
>>> A Jewish execution method, not a Chrisitain one.
>>
>>Jews believe in God.
We were talking specifically about Christian theology.
> But I forget - they are all going to Hell because they
>>don't believe in JC as the Messaiah and are not members of the "true"
>>church.
I didn't set the rules.
>>
>>>
>>>> burning at the stake,
>>>
>>> A secular execution method employed by the Catholic Church because it
>>> was common and it fit the Catholic Church's requirement that execution
>>> methods spilt no blood.
>>
>>OKAY!!! That must make it right.
You were implying that it was a religious only method. It wasn't. Did
you know that secular authorities did almost all of the actual
executions associated with the Inquisition?
>>
>>>>disemboweling,
>>>
>>> Another secualr execution method that was not employed by the Church.
>>
>>By Church you mean ; not the "true" church.
By 'Church' I mean the Catholic Church which was pretty much the only
Christianity in the West at the time. Its what most people mean when
they hurl the kind of bile that you are. The Orthodox Church was in
the East and really wasn't known for these kind of things. Most of
their big fights were internal like Iconoclasm.
>>
>>>
>>>> killing, etc., any who disagree with your form of religion.
>>>>
>>> As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you need
>>> to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans and
>>> atheists are still doing it.
>>
>>
>>Isn't George Bush a Christian?
Yes.
> How many deaths is he responsible for?
None that I know of.
> I
>>can name dozens of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of God, in
>>the last hundred years alone.
Name them. And you said 'dozens'. That's at least 24.
>>
>>> Why settle for the lesser evil?
>>> Cthulhu for president 2008.
>>
>>Perhaps your prayer will come true.
You need to learn to tell a joke from a prayer.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-95E841.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 4/2/08 3:24 AM:
>
> >> Oh, and are you
> >> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
> >> Just curious.
> >
> > Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
>
> Differing views on sex and incest:
> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
poor snit still shows his inability to comprehend what he reads.
>
> You even claimed that your view was true based on the "definition" of sex
> you believe in. Your define sex in a perverted way if, for you, it *must*
> have all the "features" of incest.
That is michael glassers definition proved by his claim that incest is a subset
of sex. to bad the presscott computer idiot* is such an idiot that he can't
understand that simple fact.
*This is part of the public record, so even michael glasser should have a
problem with me, or anybody else, using the phrase. He will of course, but then
that's typical behavior from the troll.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
To reiterate; I was never a hippie, and I don't play with crystals. Your
statement is simply not true, ergo, you're not telling the truth - just like
so many other "good christians"..
>>>>> I am by no means trying to convert you, like a maccie would
>>>>>do. I am only stating my opinion, just as you very clearly stated
>>>>>yours..
>>>>
>>>> You stated yours in direct confrontation with mine.
>>>
>>>So an opposite view is "confrontation" in your mind.
>
> In this place.
"This place" has nothing to do with it.
>>>>Another clue that
>>>> you are a New Age liberal. You think that you can criticize to your
>>>> heafrt's content but its an affront for anyone to return your fire.
>>>
>>>I welcome your criticism. But I don't see where I confronted or
>>>criticised
>>>you. Perhaps you can "cherry pick" the statement that so incensed you.
>
> Coyness does not suit you.
Another sidestep! You mean, you can't.
>>>>>FYI; My form of religion is very "old age".
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. There's nothing 'old' about your beliefs unless you think
>>>> the 60's are 'old'.
>>>
>>>Right - because you say so.
>
> No because that's how it is. Old pagan gods were very destructive,
> even mean spirited. Read some Greek, Norse, etc mythology if you don't
> believe me. The notion of God being some kind of mega sky hippie doing
> nothing but passing out favors doesn't emerge until the drug induced
> 60's counterculture does.
I see you enjoy reading fairy tales. I too have found them entertaining and
amusing. Nothing to be believed though.
>>>>> OTOH, it's your beliefs that
>>>>>are in reality "modern" or "new age", going back only a couple of
>>>>>thousand
>>>>>years. When I say beliefs, I mean the habit of crucifying,
>>>>
>>>> A Roman execution method that had nothing to do with religion.
>>>
>>>Wasn't Jesus crucified?
>
> Yes. But it had nothing to do with religion. The Romans considered him
> a threat to the Pax Romana. They used their usual execution method on
> him. It had nothing to do with religion. The Romans had lined the Via
> Appia with crucifixions from the army of Spartacus some 100 years
> earlier, for example. The religious use of the cross as a symbol of
> the triumph of life over death came later.
He was crucified by request. The Romans never considerd him a threat. But
they did consider the Jews not so much as a threat, but a possibe problem,
but easier to appease them and give them what they wanted. And the Jews
wanted JC Crucified.
But I knew you would grasp at the political angle as a loophole - thats why
I mentioned it. No surprise here that you jumped on it. You should brush up
on the bible and history.
>> I seem to remember it had something to do with
>>>religion. But that can be circumvented by calling it a "political" act.
>
> So you're confessing that you're knowledge in this area is *ahem*
> limited. You didn't really need to do that. It was pretty obvious
> already.
No, I didn't say that. My knowledge in this area is *ahem* far greater
than yours.
>>>>> stoning,
>>>>
>>>> A Jewish execution method, not a Chrisitain one.
>>>
>>>Jews believe in God.
>
> We were talking specifically about Christian theology.
Changing the goal posts now? I am speaking of organized religion. In fact,
everything I said was a generalization on religion. But you knew that.
>> But I forget - they are all going to Hell because they
>>>don't believe in JC as the Messaiah and are not members of the "true"
>>>church.
>
> I didn't set the rules.
A good excuse. The old Nazi cop out " I was only following orders".
>>>>> burning at the stake,
>>>>
>>>> A secular execution method employed by the Catholic Church because it
>>>> was common and it fit the Catholic Church's requirement that execution
>>>> methods spilt no blood.
>>>
>>>OKAY!!! That must make it right.
>
> You were implying that it was a religious only method. It wasn't. Did
> you know that secular authorities did almost all of the actual
> executions associated with the Inquisition?
The Inquisitions were strictly a Church inspired pogrom, that used a
political system, which it controlled.
>>>>>disemboweling,
>>>>
>>>> Another secualr execution method that was not employed by the Church.
>>>
>>>By Church you mean ; not the "true" church.
>
> By 'Church' I mean the Catholic Church which was pretty much the only
> Christianity in the West at the time.
Ever hear of The Church of England, a Christian church?
>Its what most people mean when
> they hurl the kind of bile that you are.
I'm not "most people". Read your History - you are remarkably ignorant. And
I really don't know of what "bile" you are talking about. Everything I have
said, is true.
> The Orthodox Church was in
> the East and really wasn't known for these kind of things. Most of
> their big fights were internal like Iconoclasm.
NA.
>>>>> killing, etc., any who disagree with your form of religion.
>>>>>
>>>> As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you need
>>>> to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans and
>>>> atheists are still doing it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't George Bush a Christian?
>
> Yes.
>
>> How many deaths is he responsible for?
>
> None that I know of.
I can't believe you just said that!!!!!
Because he didn't pull a trigger? Push your head deeper into the sand!!
Put your hands over your ears!!! Are you one of the "good christians" who
believes that GWB speaks directly to God?
>> I
>>>can name dozens of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of God,
>>>in
>>>the last hundred years alone.
>
> Name them. And you said 'dozens'. That's at least 24.
And if I name less? Then what? Are all then nullified?? Cute trick! But
"dozens" might not even be enough. Do the Christian massacares engineered by
the Isralies in the Palastinian refugee camps count? Or are only White
people considered Christians? Or possibly only Americans?
>>>> Why settle for the lesser evil?
>>>> Cthulhu for president 2008.
>>>
>>>Perhaps your prayer will come true.
> You need to learn to tell a joke from a prayer.
Any true religous freak will tell you never to involk Satan. I'm surprised
you don't know that.
> Why settle for the lesser evil?
> Cthulhu for president 2008.
If you want to continue - please snip to condense.
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
Then why do you talk like someone who does?
>
>>>>>> I am by no means trying to convert you, like a maccie would
>>>>>>do. I am only stating my opinion, just as you very clearly stated
>>>>>>yours..
>>>>>
>>>>> You stated yours in direct confrontation with mine.
>>>>
>>>>So an opposite view is "confrontation" in your mind.
>>
>> In this place.
>
>"This place" has nothing to do with it.
LOL! Unfamiliar with the concept of 'context', eh?
>
>
>>>>>Another clue that
>>>>> you are a New Age liberal. You think that you can criticize to your
>>>>> heafrt's content but its an affront for anyone to return your fire.
>>>>
>>>>I welcome your criticism. But I don't see where I confronted or
>>>>criticised
>>>>you. Perhaps you can "cherry pick" the statement that so incensed you.
>>
>> Coyness does not suit you.
>
>Another sidestep! You mean, you can't.
Mainly because it doesn't exist. You confuse bemusement with incensed.
Your ignorance and embracing of ludicrous conspiracy theories is
amazing.
>
>
>>>>>>FYI; My form of religion is very "old age".
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. There's nothing 'old' about your beliefs unless you think
>>>>> the 60's are 'old'.
>>>>
>>>>Right - because you say so.
>>
>> No because that's how it is. Old pagan gods were very destructive,
>> even mean spirited. Read some Greek, Norse, etc mythology if you don't
>> believe me. The notion of God being some kind of mega sky hippie doing
>> nothing but passing out favors doesn't emerge until the drug induced
>> 60's counterculture does.
>
>I see you enjoy reading fairy tales.
Your posts are enjoyable for a while but they grow tedious quickly.
> I too have found them entertaining and amusing. Nothing to be believed though.
>
>>>>>> OTOH, it's your beliefs that
>>>>>>are in reality "modern" or "new age", going back only a couple of
>>>>>>thousand
>>>>>>years. When I say beliefs, I mean the habit of crucifying,
>>>>>
>>>>> A Roman execution method that had nothing to do with religion.
>>>>
>>>>Wasn't Jesus crucified?
>>
>> Yes. But it had nothing to do with religion. The Romans considered him
>> a threat to the Pax Romana. They used their usual execution method on
>> him. It had nothing to do with religion. The Romans had lined the Via
>> Appia with crucifixions from the army of Spartacus some 100 years
>> earlier, for example. The religious use of the cross as a symbol of
>> the triumph of life over death came later.
>
>He was crucified by request.
Really? And where did you learn this from?
> The Romans never considerd him a threat.
Certainly you know more about this than all of the people who have
actually studied it. But do go on this is most 'enlightening'.
> But
>they did consider the Jews not so much as a threat, but a possibe problem,
>but easier to appease them and give them what they wanted. And the Jews
>wanted JC Crucified.
The corrupt Jewish leadership whose wealth and power were dependent
upon keeping the Romans happy wanted it. The Jews in general didn't.
>But I knew you would grasp at the political angle as a loophole - thats why
>I mentioned it. No surprise here that you jumped on it. You should brush up
>on the bible and history.
Says the guy who is pushing a very non-historical and non-Biblical
version.
>
>
>>> I seem to remember it had something to do with
>>>>religion. But that can be circumvented by calling it a "political" act.
>>
>> So you're confessing that you're knowledge in this area is *ahem*
>> limited. You didn't really need to do that. It was pretty obvious
>> already.
>
>No, I didn't say that.
You confessed to not knowing the events around the Crucifixion. That's
pretty much the same thing.
> My knowledge in this area is *ahem* far greater
>than yours.
That is certainly not in evidence. You seem to have bought into some
New Age crystal hugger philosophy and not looked back.
>
>>>>>> stoning,
>>>>>
>>>>> A Jewish execution method, not a Chrisitain one.
>>>>
>>>>Jews believe in God.
>>
>> We were talking specifically about Christian theology.
>
>Changing the goal posts now?
No but you certainly are yanking on them with all your might.
> I am speaking of organized religion. In fact,
>everything I said was a generalization on religion. But you knew that.
Everything you said was a slander on the Catholic Church. But you knew
that.
>
>>> But I forget - they are all going to Hell because they
>>>>don't believe in JC as the Messaiah and are not members of the "true"
>>>>church.
>>
>> I didn't set the rules.
>
>A good excuse. The old Nazi cop out " I was only following orders".
Godwinned already? And for the record I'm doing none of it. I'm not
even involved in those decisions. Its all done God's way not Your
Mayor's.
>
>
>>>>>> burning at the stake,
>>>>>
>>>>> A secular execution method employed by the Catholic Church because it
>>>>> was common and it fit the Catholic Church's requirement that execution
>>>>> methods spilt no blood.
>>>>
>>>>OKAY!!! That must make it right.
>>
>> You were implying that it was a religious only method. It wasn't. Did
>> you know that secular authorities did almost all of the actual
>> executions associated with the Inquisition?
>
>The Inquisitions were strictly a Church inspired pogrom, that used a
>political system, which it controlled.
Clinging tightly to the fiction are you? Educate yourself.
http://www.trosch.org/for/inquisition.html
>>>>>>disemboweling,
>>>>>
>>>>> Another secualr execution method that was not employed by the Church.
>>>>
>>>>By Church you mean ; not the "true" church.
>>
>> By 'Church' I mean the Catholic Church which was pretty much the only
>> Christianity in the West at the time.
>
> Ever hear of The Church of England, a Christian church?
A breakaway faction of the Catholic Church founded long after most of
the abuses that you cite. Its essentially the Catholic Church with the
English monarch as its head instead of the Pope.
>
>>Its what most people mean when
>> they hurl the kind of bile that you are.
>
>I'm not "most people".
You can say that again!
> Read your History - you are remarkably ignorant. And
>I really don't know of what "bile" you are talking about. Everything I have
>said, is true.
Almost everything you have said is ignorant and wrong. I'm not sure
what history book you read it in but I hope you stayed inside the
lines when you colored the pictures in it.
>
>> The Orthodox Church was in
>> the East and really wasn't known for these kind of things. Most of
>> their big fights were internal like Iconoclasm.
>
>NA.
Actually it is quite applicable. You're trying to blame religion in
general for a lot of ills. If that's true how do you explain the fact
that the Orthodox Church, which was if anything even more tightly
entwined with government than the Catholic Church was in West didn't
do these same things? Could it be that the things going on in the West
and particularly Spain had more to do with the fact that they'd just
repelled the Moors in the Reconquista and that the near constant
warfare between local warlords had left society in general a bit
unhinged than it did religion?
>
>>>>>> killing, etc., any who disagree with your form of religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you need
>>>>> to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans and
>>>>> atheists are still doing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Isn't George Bush a Christian?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> How many deaths is he responsible for?
>>
>> None that I know of.
>
>I can't believe you just said that!!!!!
You do seem to have trouble with the truth.
>
>Because he didn't pull a trigger? Push your head deeper into the sand!!
Give even more aid and comfort to the enemy, hippie.
>Put your hands over your ears!!! Are you one of the "good christians" who
>believes that GWB speaks directly to God?
So its either you're a mass murderer or you speak directly to God in
your view? And you actually don't see how nuts you are?
>
>>> I
>>>>can name dozens of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of God,
>>>>in
>>>>the last hundred years alone.
>>
>> Name them. And you said 'dozens'. That's at least 24.
>
>And if I name less? Then what?
Then you were wrong. Whether it was by accident or design won't matter
as much as the fact that you were wrong.
> Are all then nullified?? Cute trick!
I'm not seeing even one so far.
> But "dozens" might not even be enough. Do the Christian massacares engineered by
>the Isralies in the Palastinian refugee camps count?
So now Jews are carrying out Christian massacres? Did you read that in
your history book? Are you going to include the wholly fictional Jenna
massacre as well? I ask for information only.
> Or are only White people considered Christians? Or possibly only Americans?
Christianity is a religion not a race or nationality. That you needed
to be told that says a lot about your bigoted worldview.
>
>>>>> Why settle for the lesser evil?
>>>>> Cthulhu for president 2008.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps your prayer will come true.
>
>> You need to learn to tell a joke from a prayer.
>
>Any true religous freak will tell you never to involk Satan. I'm surprised
>you don't know that.
Cthulhu is not Satan. HP Lovecraft was a very strict atheist. None of
his creations are either angels or demons. They are very powerful
aliens. Do you know anything about any of the subjects you try to talk
about?
>
>
>> Why settle for the lesser evil?
>> Cthulhu for president 2008.
>
>If you want to continue - please snip to condense.
I don't snip. Too many people like to use that to weasel out of what
they said by claiming that you snipped out all the good parts.
--
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
>snip
>>>>>The irony was your first broadside "Go play with your crystals and say
>>>>>'Oooomm' some more, hippie
>>>
>>> Telling the truth is not a sidestep.
>>
>>To reiterate; I was never a hippie, and I don't play with crystals. Your
>>statement is simply not true, ergo, you're not telling the truth - just
>>like
>>so many other "good christians"..
>
> Then why do you talk like someone who does?
Because that's what you hear.
> LOL! Unfamiliar with the concept of 'context', eh?
>>snip
>>they did consider the Jews not so much as a threat, but a possibe problem,
>>but easier to appease them and give them what they wanted. And the Jews
>>wanted JC Crucified.
>
> The corrupt Jewish leadership whose wealth and power were dependent
> upon keeping the Romans happy wanted it.
Im not going to start a history lesson here - it wasn't as cut an dried as
you make it sound.
>The Jews in general didn't.
Agreed.
>snip
>>>>>> As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> atheists are still doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Isn't George Bush a Christian?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> How many deaths is he responsible for?
>>>
>>> None that I know of.
>>
>>I can't believe you just said that!!!!!
>
> You do seem to have trouble with the truth.
>
>>
>>Because he didn't pull a trigger? Push your head deeper into the sand!!
>
> Give even more aid and comfort to the enemy, hippie.
BULL SHIT!!!! I know that we have to "fight them there" so we won't have to
"fight them here".!!!!!! Imagine how horrible it would be if 3,000,000 al
Quaida invaded us. It would be a horror -- for them- --they would be
annihialited in a couple of days, if not sooner.
> snip
>Put your hands over your ears!!! Are you one of the "good christians" who
>believes that GWB speaks directly to God?
> So its either you're a mass murderer or you speak directly to God in
> your view? And you actually don't see how nuts you are?
Goody! a question answered by a question. Are you taking lessons from J.
Polaski?
>>>> I
>>>>>can name dozens of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of
>>>>>God,
>>>>>in
>>>>>the last hundred years alone.
>>>
>>> Name them. And you said 'dozens'. That's at least 24.
>>
>>And if I name less? Then what?
>
> Then you were wrong. Whether it was by accident or design won't matter
> as much as the fact that you were wrong.
>
>> Are all then nullified?? Cute trick!
>
> I'm not seeing even one so far.
>
>> But "dozens" might not even be enough. Do the Christian massacares
>> engineered by
>>the Isralies in the Palastinian refugee camps count?
>
> So now Jews are carrying out Christian massacres? Did you read that in
> your history book? Are you going to include the wholly fictional Jenna
> massacre as well? I ask for information only.
No, I'm not anti-Jew, as you well know. But I am strongly anti Israel. Very
cheap trick - beneth contempt.
> Or are only White people considered Christians? Or possibly only
> Americans?
>
> Christianity is a religion not a race or nationality. That you needed
> to be told that says a lot about your bigoted worldview.
Don't put words in my mouth - another cheap trick, you should be fed to
lions.
>snip
My qualifications are better than yours:
I went to Catholic school thru the end of high school.
In addition, I also studied the bible in its entirety many times.
I studied History into college.
I was a Catholic Christian until the age of thirty.
At that age, I rejected all formalized religions.
I am now a Deist.
I did not, and am not trying to "convert" you in any way. In this life I
really don't give a fuck about what you, or anyone else believes.
I see you as a narrow minded zealot - more so than even the most extreme on
this group. I think you would have enjoyed living in the days of the Salem
Witch hunts. Sentencing them to death, possibly even lighting the fire or,
at the very least, smugly satisfied..
Maybe you should join the Army. You can Kill Iraqis in the national
interest, and for God. If some of the Muslim casualties happen to be
Christian - Oh well!!! Collateral damage!!!
Maybe my perception of you is all wrong - but I'll never know.
BTW: do you believe in Global Warming?? I think something "Bad" is
happening. 2012 is coming. Better start researching.
FYI:
Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and
nature of God from reason and personal experience. This is in contrast to
fideism which is found in many forms ofChristianity.[1] Islamic and Judaic
teachings hold that religion relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or
the testimony of other people as well as reasoning.
Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to
assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the
laws of the universe. What organized religions see asdivine revelation and
holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather
than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to
humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason.
You have the last word. Spin away, good Christian.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bi98v3dlr8fn82ksa...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:33:05 -0400, "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is
>> fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>>snip
>
>>>>>>The irony was your first broadside "Go play with your crystals and say
>>>>>>'Oooomm' some more, hippie
>>>>
>>>> Telling the truth is not a sidestep.
>>>
>>>To reiterate; I was never a hippie, and I don't play with crystals. Your
>>>statement is simply not true, ergo, you're not telling the truth - just
>>>like
>>>so many other "good christians"..
>>
>> Then why do you talk like someone who does?
>
>Because that's what you hear.
Because that's what you say.
>
>
>> LOL! Unfamiliar with the concept of 'context', eh?
>
>
>>>snip
>>>they did consider the Jews not so much as a threat, but a possibe problem,
>>>but easier to appease them and give them what they wanted. And the Jews
>>>wanted JC Crucified.
>>
>> The corrupt Jewish leadership whose wealth and power were dependent
>> upon keeping the Romans happy wanted it.
>
>Im not going to start a history lesson here - it wasn't as cut an dried as
>you make it sound.
IOW we've reached the limits of your ignorance.
>
>>The Jews in general didn't.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>snip
>
>
>>>>>>> As if pagans and atheists were clean of such things. At least you
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to go back centuries to find a time when Christians did it. Pagans
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> atheists are still doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Isn't George Bush a Christian?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> How many deaths is he responsible for?
>>>>
>>>> None that I know of.
>>>
>>>I can't believe you just said that!!!!!
>>
>> You do seem to have trouble with the truth.
>>
>>>
>>>Because he didn't pull a trigger? Push your head deeper into the sand!!
>>
>> Give even more aid and comfort to the enemy, hippie.
>
>BULL SHIT!!!! I know that we have to "fight them there" so we won't have to
>"fight them here".!!!!!! Imagine how horrible it would be if 3,000,000 al
>Quaida invaded us. It would be a horror -- for them- --they would be
>annihialited in a couple of days, if not sooner.
If they stood toe to toe with the US Army they would. Maybe you
haven't noticed but they don't fight like that.
>
>
>> snip
>
>>Put your hands over your ears!!! Are you one of the "good christians" who
>>believes that GWB speaks directly to God?
>
>> So its either you're a mass murderer or you speak directly to God in
>> your view? And you actually don't see how nuts you are?
>
>Goody! a question answered by a question. Are you taking lessons from J.
>Polaski?
A question you have no answer for.
>
>
>>>>> I
>>>>>>can name dozens of atrocities committed by Christians in the name of
>>>>>>God,
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the last hundred years alone.
>>>>
>>>> Name them. And you said 'dozens'. That's at least 24.
>>>
>>>And if I name less? Then what?
>>
>> Then you were wrong. Whether it was by accident or design won't matter
>> as much as the fact that you were wrong.
>>
>>> Are all then nullified?? Cute trick!
>>
>> I'm not seeing even one so far.
>>
>>> But "dozens" might not even be enough. Do the Christian massacares
>>> engineered by
>>>the Isralies in the Palastinian refugee camps count?
>>
>> So now Jews are carrying out Christian massacres? Did you read that in
>> your history book? Are you going to include the wholly fictional Jenna
>> massacre as well? I ask for information only.
>
>No, I'm not anti-Jew, as you well know. But I am strongly anti Israel. Very
>cheap trick - beneth contempt.
The lamest of all the Jew haters dodges.
>
>> Or are only White people considered Christians? Or possibly only
>> Americans?
>>
>> Christianity is a religion not a race or nationality. That you needed
>> to be told that says a lot about your bigoted worldview.
>
>Don't put words in my mouth - another cheap trick, you should be fed to
>lions.
Turnabout is fair play.
>
>>snip
>
>My qualifications are better than yours:
>
>
>
>I went to Catholic school thru the end of high school.
BFD. You and ten million other ignoramuses.
>
>In addition, I also studied the bible in its entirety many times.
It looks like you studied via the George Graves' method. Make a
bigoted, ignorant assumption then cherry pick away to support it.
>
>I studied History into college.
Sleeping in history class isn't really the same as studying.
>
>I was a Catholic Christian until the age of thirty.
Were you or did you just go through the motions? It doesn't sound like
you paid much attention while you were there.
>
>At that age, I rejected all formalized religions.
>
>I am now a Deist.
You may call yourself anything you like. You're still ignorant of
Christianity and history.
>
>
>
>I did not, and am not trying to "convert" you in any way. In this life I
>really don't give a fuck about what you, or anyone else believes.
No one ever said you were trying to convert anyone. That's your
strawman. And you'd make a pisspoor missionary anyway.
>
>I see you as a narrow minded zealot - more so than even the most extreme on
>this group.
And I see you as a soft-skulled nimrod.
> I think you would have enjoyed living in the days of the Salem
>Witch hunts. Sentencing them to death, possibly even lighting the fire or,
>at the very least, smugly satisfied..
And you would have loved the Roman Empire days. All of those Jews and
Christians for you to kill and hate. You would have been orgasmic all
day long.
>
>
>
>Maybe you should join the Army. You can Kill Iraqis in the national
>interest, and for God. If some of the Muslim casualties happen to be
>Christian - Oh well!!! Collateral damage!!!
Maybe you should join al Quaeda. You already love to give them aid and
comfort. You might as take well the plunge and strap a bomb to your
ass and blow up some schoolkids.
>
>
>
>Maybe my perception of you is all wrong - but I'll never know.
Ditto.
>
>
>
>BTW: do you believe in Global Warming??
Do I believe in climate change? sure. It changes all the time. The
Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, etc. The notion that man is
exerting any kind of influence is poppycock born of hubris. In fact
the earth has been cooling for the last decade in stark contrast to
the DOOM!sayers predictions.
> I think something "Bad" is
>happening. 2012 is coming. Better start researching.
LOL! So now you believe in that Maya calendar, Nostrodamus nonsense?
And yet you claim to be educated! It is to laugh!
>
>
>
>FYI:
>
>Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and
>nature of God from reason and personal experience. This is in contrast to
>fideism which is found in many forms ofChristianity.[1] Islamic and Judaic
>teachings hold that religion relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or
>the testimony of other people as well as reasoning.
>
>Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to
>assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the
>laws of the universe. What organized religions see asdivine revelation and
>holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather
>than as authoritative sources. Deists believe that God's greatest gift to
>humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason.
>
>
>
>You have the last word.
Oh, lucky day!
> Spin away, good Christian.
What you call 'spin' we call 'reality' out here beyond the walls of
the asylum that you're in.
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>PS: Jesus would never act like you do.
>
LOL! I never claimed to be perfect. Just striving. I love the way the
atheists have decided that they know all about my religion to the
point where they think they can dictate it to me. zara you have
demonstrated an ignorance of Christian principles and theology that
may even exceed George Graves'. And that's saying a lot!
What you say about Christianity is given the appropriate weight.
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:23:43 -0400, "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is
> fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>>PS: Jesus would never act like you do.
>>
> LOL! I never claimed to be perfect. Just striving. I love the way the
> atheists have decided that they know all about my religion to the
> point where they think they can dictate it to me.
How cleaver. I'm a Deist, not an Atheist. Try to learn the difference.
> zara you have
> demonstrated an ignorance of Christian principles and theology that
> may even exceed George Graves'. And that's saying a lot!
George is far more balanced than you can ever hope to be.
> What you say about Christianity is given the appropriate weight.
Kill em all!!! Let God sort out the pieces!!!!.
Snit
4/2/08 5:07 PM:
> In article <C418F778.B1C8C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-95E841.06...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
>> 4/2/08 3:24 AM:
>>
>>>> Oh, and are you
>>>> still claiming that any sex you have had has all the "features" of incest?
>>>> Just curious.
>>>
>>> Since I've never claimed that michael, you must be thinking about yourself.
>>
>> Differing views on sex and incest:
>> Snit: sex should not have the "feature" of being incestuous
>> Tim Adams: sex MUST include all of the features of incest
>
> poor snit still shows his inability to comprehend what he reads.
>
>>
>> You even claimed that your view was true based on the "definition" of sex
>> you believe in. Your define sex in a perverted way if, for you, it *must*
>> have all the "features" of incest.
>
> That is michael glassers definition proved by his claim that incest is a
> subset
> of sex. to bad the presscott computer idiot* is such an idiot that he can't
> understand that simple fact.
>
>
>
> *This is part of the public record, so even michael glasser should have a
> problem with me, or anybody else, using the phrase. He will of course, but
> then
> that's typical behavior from the troll.
Reported to ab...@earthlink.com.
Mayor of R'lyeh
fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k7g8v31sik3jk400s...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:23:43 -0400, "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is
>> fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PS: Jesus would never act like you do.
>>>
>> LOL! I never claimed to be perfect. Just striving. I love the way the
>> atheists have decided that they know all about my religion to the
>> point where they think they can dictate it to me.
>
>How cleaver. I'm a Deist, not an Atheist. Try to learn the difference.
You talk like an atheist.
>
>> zara you have
>> demonstrated an ignorance of Christian principles and theology that
>> may even exceed George Graves'. And that's saying a lot!
>
>George is far more balanced than you can ever hope to be.
LOL! With that one statement you show yourself for what you are - a
biased loon.
>
>> What you say about Christianity is given the appropriate weight.
>
>Kill em all!!! Let God sort out the pieces!!!!.
zara gives the Deist high sign.
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Prove it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >PS: Jesus would never act like you do.
> >
> LOL! I never claimed to be perfect. Just striving.
I'm sorry, are you "striving" to be perfect?? Surely you're joking?
Someone that goes around murdering their neighbours just because
they're drunk isn't really "striving to be perfect". Sorry.
--
Sandman[.net]
Joey is fucked@demoncaller.com The zara
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:36:28 -0400, "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is
> fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:k7g8v31sik3jk400s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:23:43 -0400, "The zara" <Scumbag Joey is
>>> fuc...@demoncaller.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>PS: Jesus would never act like you do.
>>>>
>>> LOL! I never claimed to be perfect. Just striving. I love the way the
>>> atheists have decided that they know all about my religion to the
>>> point where they think they can dictate it to me.
>>
""I love the way the atheists have decided that they know all about my
religion to the
point where they think they can dictate it to me.". Truly telling -
raging paranoia. The only one preaching and dictating their fucked-up
religion on this group - is you.
>>How cleaver. I'm a Deist, not an Atheist. Try to learn the difference.
>
> You talk like an atheist.
Another reality distortion.
>>> zara you have
>>> demonstrated an ignorance of Christian principles and theology that
>>> may even exceed George Graves'. And that's saying a lot!
When I listed my qualifications, you should have countered with yours. But
since you have none --- denigration, the only talent / defence you have.
>>George is far more balanced than you can ever hope to be.
>
> LOL! With that one statement you show yourself for what you are - a
> biased loon.
Says the demented zealot.
>>> What you say about Christianity is given the appropriate weight.
>>
>>Kill em all!!! Let God sort out the pieces!!!!.
>
> zara gives the Deist high sign.
Onward!! Christian soldier.
> Why settle for the lesser evil?
> Cthulhu for president 2008.
Hope your prayer comes true.
So far I have been kind to you - perhaps you should bow out gracefully now.
Otherwise I have a battery of "compelling" questions I will start asking.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Wow! Sandman lied about something I said! I'm shocked! Well, not
really.