R: Nutty Knews Full of Holes !
Knews4U
> Yes, what else is new? Knews4u comes up with another nutty conspiracy to
> blather about. Maybe while he regales us with crazier and crazier idiocies
> about this story, he will return to entertaining us, giving us good belly
> laughs at his expense after so long a dry period he has produced with his so
> often repeated 9/11 gibberish.
Jews and George Bush Jr. caused the Fort Hood shooting ?
another knews4U wacky conspiracy - more nutty knews entertainment !
>
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
If he were so nutty you'd be able to intelligently disassemble and
destroy his arguments rather than masquerading under his ID to make shit
up.
Troll.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:21:08 -0800, Knews4U
> <Nutty4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 20, 1:27 am, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, what else is new? Knews4u comes up with another nutty
>>> conspiracy to blather about. Maybe while he regales us with
>>> crazier and crazier idiocies about this story, he will return
>>> to entertaining us, giving us good belly laughs at his expense
>>> after so long a dry period he has produced with his so often
>>> repeated 9/11 gibberish.
>>
>> Jews and George Bush Jr. caused the Fort Hood shooting ?
>> another knews4U wacky conspiracy - more nutty knews
>> entertainment !
>
> If he were so nutty you'd be able to intelligently disassemble
> and destroy his arguments
His arguments *have* been intelligently disassembled and destroyed.
As have yours. For example, you've never been able to reconcile
your constant railing about how the concept of authority doesn't
exist, with that of your claims to possess a home. The whole notion
of possession and ownership depends upon the concept of authority.
It requires someone to claim that they have the right to use an
object, or place on Earth, to the exclusion of others.
So how can there be ownership without authority?
Why is it that the intellectual construct of ownership can exist,
but the intellectual construct of an agreement between two people to
share ownership of a single item cannot exist?
Your eternal failure to have ever addressed those issues on any
level, is, by definition, total disassembly and destruction of your
arguments.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In news:he6cgq$c76$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:21:08 -0800, Knews4U <Nutty4...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 1:27 am, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, what else is new? Knews4u comes up with another nutty conspiracy
>>>> to blather about. Maybe while he regales us with crazier and crazier
>>>> idiocies about this story, he will return to entertaining us, giving
>>>> us good belly laughs at his expense after so long a dry period he has
>>>> produced with his so often repeated 9/11 gibberish.
>>>
>>> Jews and George Bush Jr. caused the Fort Hood shooting ? another
>>> knews4U wacky conspiracy - more nutty knews entertainment !
>>
>> If he were so nutty you'd be able to intelligently disassemble and
>> destroy his arguments
>
> His arguments *have* been intelligently disassembled and destroyed.
Not by you or anywhere I've seen. Insults and contradictions don't
qualify.
> As
> have yours. For example, you've never been able to reconcile your
> constant railing about how the concept of authority doesn't exist, with
> that of your claims to possess a home. The whole notion of possession
> and ownership depends upon the concept of authority. It requires someone
> to claim that they have the right to use an object, or place on Earth,
> to the exclusion of others.
>
> So how can there be ownership without authority?
What does that have to do with the Twin Towers?
> Why is it that the intellectual construct of ownership can exist, but
> the intellectual construct of an agreement between two people to share
> ownership of a single item cannot exist?
>
> Your eternal failure to have ever addressed those issues on any level,
> is, by definition, total disassembly and destruction of your arguments.
That is another non sequitor.
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:53:41 -0500, "AllYou!"
> <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>> In news:he6cgq$c76$1...@news.eternal-september.org, Curly
>> Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:21:08 -0800, Knews4U
>>> <Nutty4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 20, 1:27 am, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, what else is new? Knews4u comes up with another nutty
>>>>> conspiracy to blather about. Maybe while he regales us with
>>>>> crazier and crazier idiocies about this story, he will
>>>>> return to entertaining us, giving us good belly laughs at
>>>>> his expense after so long a dry period he has produced with
>>>>> his so often repeated 9/11 gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> Jews and George Bush Jr. caused the Fort Hood shooting ?
>>>> another knews4U wacky conspiracy - more nutty knews
>>>> entertainment !
>>>
>>> If he were so nutty you'd be able to intelligently disassemble
>>> and destroy his arguments
>>
>> His arguments *have* been intelligently disassembled and
>> destroyed.
>
> Not by you or anywhere I've seen. Insults and contradictions
> don't qualify.
I have no doubt that you haven't recognized the destruction of his
arguments as such. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, though.
>> As
>> have yours. For example, you've never been able to reconcile
>> your constant railing about how the concept of authority
>> doesn't exist, with that of your claims to possess a home. The
>> whole notion of possession and ownership depends upon the
>> concept of authority. It requires someone to claim that they
>> have the right to use an object, or place on Earth, to the
>> exclusion of others.
>>
>> So how can there be ownership without authority?
>
> What does that have to do with the Twin Towers?
Why should it have anything to do with the twin towers?
Why do you continue to fail to provide what should be a simply
answer to this very simple question?
>
>> Why is it that the intellectual construct of ownership can
>> exist, but the intellectual construct of an agreement between
>> two people to share ownership of a single item cannot exist?
>>
>> Your eternal failure to have ever addressed those issues on any
>> level, is, by definition, total disassembly and destruction of
>> your arguments.
>
> That is another non sequitor.
That is another example of where your position has been exposed as
utterly destroyed.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Because that is where you insult and contradict the massive evidence
provided.
AllYou!
First of all, I didn't even respond to him in this thread, and
second of all, that seems like quite the authoritative statement for
you to make.
The relevance of my questions *to you* is derived from your
admonishement that claims as to the invalidity of an argument should
be accompanied by a case for that claim. Therefore, it stands to
reason that *your* claims should also stand the test of validity,
and so I'm simply pointing out that, wrt the issue of authority, you
have not provided a case for that either.
Why did you feel insulted by that?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
So what? You ridicule and insult people that your arguments are unable
to convince. That is your problem, not that of your targets.
> The relevance of my questions *to you* is derived from your
> admonishement that claims as to the invalidity of an argument should be
> accompanied by a case for that claim. Therefore, it stands to reason
> that *your* claims should also stand the test of validity, and so I'm
> simply pointing out that, wrt the issue of authority, you have not
> provided a case for that either.
Being that you have failed to specify what claim you're speaking of that,
too, is a bogus argument.
> Why did you feel insulted by that?
A bogus inquiry is naught but projection and fits your debate style of
insulting others when your arguments fail. Stalking News4y2chew with
constant insults and attacks is an entirely underwhelming argument.
You just fell out of the Bozo Bin after a 30 day period in the penalty
box. His patience is greater than mine.
AllYou!
That is your obfuscation.
>> The relevance of my questions *to you* is derived from your
>> admonishement that claims as to the invalidity of an argument
>> should be accompanied by a case for that claim. Therefore, it
>> stands to reason that *your* claims should also stand the test
>> of validity, and so I'm simply pointing out that, wrt the issue
>> of authority, you have not provided a case for that either.
>
> Being that you have failed to specify what claim you're speaking
> of that, too, is a bogus argument.
That's more obfuscation. You certainly know that I refer to your
claim that you do not belive in the notion of authority. You know
this because I specifically referred to your position that "the
concept of authority doesn't exist".
>> Why did you feel insulted by that?
>
> A bogus inquiry is naught but projection and fits your debate
> style of insulting others when your arguments fail.
But I neither insulted you, or chewey.
> Stalking
> News4y2chew with constant insults and attacks is an entirely
> underwhelming argument.
I find it interesting that you'd project the very negative term of
'stalking' onto someone who is simply responding to invitations for
response. By the very definition of Usenet, someone who starts a
thread on a particular subject is inviting a response to it. In
fact, anyone who posts anything in this virtual town square is
inviting a response. If they were not, they could avail themselves
of private email, or authoritatively structured monitored chat
rooms.
But this is Usenet, and not only can anyone replay to anyone who
posts anything, but it's actually encouraged. So even the mere
suggestion that there should be limits upon this freedom (i.e.,
accusing someone of stalking suggests that they should limit their
responses) is a tell tale sign of an authoritarian nature.
> You just fell out of the Bozo Bin after a 30 day period in the
> penalty box. His patience is greater than mine.
What's a Bonzo Bin?
DanB
>>>> As
>>>> have yours. For example, you've never been able to reconcile
>>>> your constant railing about how the concept of authority
>>>> doesn't exist, with that of your claims to possess a home. The
>>>> whole notion of possession and ownership depends upon the
>>>> concept of authority. It requires someone to claim that they
>>>> have the right to use an object, or place on Earth, to the
>>>> exclusion of others.
>>>>
>>>> So how can there be ownership without authority?
> That's really pretty simple. Ownership can come through the
> lawlessness. You know, it's like when the big guy ties you to the
> chair and rapes your wife. She is his until he gives her back to you.
> He will probably keep your money and valuables. Ownership has
> permanently been transferred in that instance.
Maybe you are thinking in terms of 'rightful' ownership. But in both
cases authority rules.
Wealth inequity must be enforced. The example is all of history.
DanB
>
> I find it interesting that you'd project the very negative term of
> 'stalking' onto someone who is simply responding to invitations for
> response. By the very definition of Usenet, someone who starts a
> thread on a particular subject is inviting a response to it. In
> fact, anyone who posts anything in this virtual town square is
> inviting a response. If they were not, they could avail themselves
> of private email, or authoritatively structured monitored chat
> rooms.
>
> But this is Usenet, and not only can anyone replay to anyone who
> posts anything, but it's actually encouraged. So even the mere
> suggestion that there should be limits upon this freedom (i.e.,
> accusing someone of stalking suggests that they should limit their
> responses) is a tell tale sign of an authoritarian nature.
>
Wow, this guy allyou is a piece of work. Not a couple of days ago he was
ranting and stomping his feet about 'his' post being jumped!
I do think he is raving mad....
AllYou!
DanB <a...@some.net> mused:
I'm sure it felt that way to you, with all of your issues & all.
But the truth is that I only used that word to described how it was
that you replied to me from nowhere, and I do so in the context of
how, after you did you, you got made because I responded in kind.
But that confused you very much, and so I can understand how you'd
think it was the same as "ranting and stomping feet".
> I do think he is raving mad....
I thought you were going to let me have the last word? So, on top
of your fear, anger, and authority issues, you have commitment
problems too, I see.
Curly Surmudgeon
Which is why he's back in the Bozo Filter...
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Golden Rule.
"The one with the gold makes the rules."
AllYou!
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> mused:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:09:52 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you'd project the very negative
>>> term of 'stalking' onto someone who is simply responding to
>>> invitations for response. By the very definition of Usenet,
>>> someone who starts a thread on a particular subject is
>>> inviting a response to it. In fact, anyone who posts anything
>>> in this virtual town square is inviting a response. If they
>>> were not, they could avail themselves of private email, or
>>> authoritatively structured monitored chat rooms.
>>>
>>> But this is Usenet, and not only can anyone replay to anyone
>>> who posts anything, but it's actually encouraged. So even
>>> the mere suggestion that there should be limits upon this
>>> freedom (i.e., accusing someone of stalking suggests that they
>>> should limit their responses) is a tell tale sign of an
>>> authoritarian nature.
>>>
>>>
>> Wow, this guy allyou is a piece of work. Not a couple of days
>> ago he was ranting and stomping his feet about 'his' post being
>> jumped!
>>
>> I do think he is raving mad....
>
> Which is why he's back in the Bozo Filter...
For someone who has been refusing to answer such simple questions as
to your position on the invalid basis that I've been insulting,
that's a terribly insulting thing to say.
Clearly, you've 'filtered' me because you simply do not have any
answers to the questions I've posed which you know totally destroy
your position.
Well, you may not want to see your position continually destroyed,
but rest assured, it will be destroyed none the less.
DanB
How do you know this?
DanB
> It's human nature and I've been dealing with people who have the life
> philosophy of you have it, I want it, I take it; for decades....
So you are making an assumption about prehistoric civilization based on
your present day experiences. So, you don't know, you just think you know...
> Making
> stealing legal will definitely lessen the crime rates, but it won't
> help you keep your stuff...
What does this have to do with the above?
DanB
> with "I know."....
That's fine, I don't know why you are looking for such. You simply don't
understand my point, it is about the nature of your 'knowledge'.
<http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16918367/Hume-and-Popper-on-Induction-(Feb-13-%5B27%5D)>
>>> Making
>>> stealing legal will definitely lessen the crime rates, but it won't
>>> help you keep your stuff...
>> What does this have to do with the above?
>
> That the concept that the "whole notion of possession and ownership
> depends upon the concept of authority" is in error. Without the
> concept of authority, the whole notion of possession and ownership
> would depend on the concept of one's strength to take it and keep it.
> Authority is what allows the weak to survive with some dignity.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Authority>
There is nothing in the definition that covers morals. So here also, you
don't understand my post. To wit...
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or
disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
If an authority takes it upon themselves to rap and kill, they are still
the 'authority'. Means and morals have nothing to do with it.
To 'allows the weak to survive with some dignity', requires an
adjective, like, 'benign'.
DanB
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:16:56 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>
>> Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:34:18 -0700, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>>> Authority is what allows the weak to survive with some dignity.
>> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Authority>
>>
>> There is nothing in the definition that covers morals. So here also, you
>> don't understand my post. To wit...
>
> I find it odd that you want to bring morality into the issue. I've
> said nothing about morality.
The why write, 'Authority is what allows the weak to survive with some
dignity.'?
DanB
> you snipped) first. Pick a position and stick with it. Otherwise, I
> fear that you are indeed destined for the bozo bin.
Position? I have to be 'for or against' something? Wow, no wonder the
world is screwed up. I welcome you 'bin'.
Bye bye....