Amy Grand new lead singer for Van Halen
ßreezy
"She's better for the band than I ever was," says ex-Halen Gary Cherone.
"Maybe there's hope for them yet."
--
ße free,
ßreezy
ßreezy
article.
--
ße free,
ßreezy
walterlane
snail
If you killfile on Amy Grant you'll save yourself a whole lot of bother.
--
snail @ careless net | Character is what you are in the dark! - Whorfin
scholar and fool
>[blank message]
congratulations breezy! you've taken that all-important first
step in becoming the kind of reviled and hated christian that
bob says it is necessary to be. way to go!
perhaps one of these days, with a lot of work, you can get up
to bob's impressive level of being persecuted "for christ".
but i wouldn't count on it.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. ha. haha. ha?
walterlane
slew of nonsense posts all at once. Don't mind a little play, however.
--
Before anyone was "left behind" a battle raged for
the soul of one man. Fearmonger, a novel.
http://www.walterlane.com
"scholar and fool" <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote in message
news:ffd13dc5.02061...@posting.google.com...
Bob Weigel
killfiles so he can show that he's really not very popular any more.
Now...while it's a good thing to be willing to suffer humiliation
for the sake of the cross; the principles of the gospel and an association
with God's character, I don't think it's good to gain that unpopularity
by just annoying a bunch of people for no good reason. Recommend
just taking a stand when people start preaching lies that are going
to put people in bondage like Jesus did! That does it for me. -Bob
In article <slrnag9ffo...@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
Bob Weigel
message days ago but haven't had time helping people move and stuff.
Lest S+F think I sapped creativity from him. Nay, rather I once
again refuted the heart of his degrading intent without even
having to read it first. It must...suck to be that predictable. -Bob
In article <ffd13dc5.02061...@posting.google.com>,
Breezy
> congratulations breezy! you've taken that all-important first
> step in becoming the kind of reviled and hated christian that
> bob says it is necessary to be. way to go!
Say it isn't so. I just want to be liked by everybody.
--
Be free,
Breezy
Jay
Don't worry, Breezy. I didn't killfile you. I thought it was all rather funny.
Dare I say, "Keep up the good work"?
Jay
My Jesus decal does quite a trick
Right above my dashboard I stick it
A good luck charm
It keeps me from harm
And saves me from speeding tickets
scholar and fool
> > congratulations breezy! you've taken that all-important first
> > step in becoming the kind of reviled and hated christian that
>
> I don't feel hostile toward the guy, it's just that he posted a whole
> slew of nonsense posts all at once. Don't mind a little play, however.
no no no no. no! this won't do at all!!! breezy is supposed to be
making people hate him so that he can be a true christian like bob!
now you are going and messing it all up! don't you want breezy to be
a true christian?!
it doesn't matter if the posts are nonsense or not. (just look at
bob's posts.) what's important is numbers -- making as many people
dislike you as possible. throw breezy a bone here, man! i mean, if
you can't feel hostile toward him, could you maybe at least just kind
of dislike him a little? like him begrudgingly? help the guy out,
man!
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. nevermind.
walterlane
little foolishness.) By the way, I've fixed the quote below.
--
Before anyone was "left behind" a battle raged for
the soul of one man. Fearmonger, a novel.
http://www.walterlane.com
"scholar and fool" <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote in message
news:ffd13dc5.02061...@posting.google.com...
> "walterlane" <la...@walterlane.com> (never) wrote:
> > > congratulations breezy! you've taken that all-important first
> > > step in becoming the kind of reviled and hated christian that
> > > bob says it is necessary to be. way to go! [...]
> >
> >(I wrote) I don't feel hostile toward the guy, it's just that he
Breezy
> Don't worry, Breezy. I didn't killfile you. I thought it was all rather
funny.
> Dare I say, "Keep up the good work"?
Help! Now I'm confused! I have two sides of the force calling me! Some
dislike me, which makes me the second-best Christian here, and some are
pulling me the other way, exposing my desire to just be loved and hold hands
and get along with everybody. I'd like to buy the world a Coke. Yeah.
Thanks! I've made up my mind. For now. S&F you'll have to try harder if
you're going to convince me to choose the other side.
--
Be free,
Breezy
Joy
LOL!
scholar and fool
> By the way, I've fixed the quote below.
actually, the quoting was correct. attribution lines are one of
those things that are easy to misread. i left my original comment
in for context, but the attribution line did not indicate that
what i wrote was said by you. if it had read
walterlane wrote:
> bob is a goober.
then it would have indicated you said it. but instead it was
walterlane wrote:
> > bob is a goober.
> no, he's just special.
which indicates that someone else said "bob is a goober" and
you responded with "no, he's just special."
so here's my post as it originally appeared:
"walterlane" <la...@walterlane.com> wrote:
> > congratulations breezy! you've taken that all-important first
> > step in becoming the kind of reviled and hated christian that
> > bob says it is necessary to be. way to go! [...]
>
> i don't feel hostile toward the guy, it's just that he posted a whole
> slew of nonsense posts all at once. Don't mind a little play, however.
no no no no. no! this won't do at all!!! [...]
----------
this indicates that someone made the original "congratulations"
comment, but their attribution line was not carried along. then
you came along and said "i don't feel hostile toward the guy [...]"
i understand that putting your name next to the top comment may
confuse some people, but the quoting was properly done and people
who understand how the "> " tag system works should not have a
problem knowing who said what.
i wouldn't want to give you credit for my comments anyway. ;)
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. schoolin'.
scholar and fool
> "Jay" wrote:
> > Don't worry, Breezy. I didn't killfile you. I thought it was
> > all rather funny. Dare I say, "Keep up the good work"?
>
> Help! Now I'm confused! I have two sides of the force calling me! Some
> dislike me, which makes me the second-best Christian here, and some are
> pulling me the other way, exposing my desire to just be loved and hold hands
> and get along with everybody. I'd like to buy the world a Coke. Yeah.
> Thanks! I've made up my mind. For now.
dang it! all of you apostate liars need to stop this! breezy was
finally beginning to get confused...i mean INFUSED with bob's light!
bob knows it. i know it. breezy was intentionally trying to lose
favor in the sight of man because his heart had been PRICKED by the
truth of bob's admonition!!! (you don't have to admit it breezy, bob
and i both KNOW it.) but when the sons of the devil realize that
they are losing one of their own, they will stop at NOTHING to keep
that soul in their control. what breezy wrote wasn't any more funny
than mike's parody of bob was a parody. bob and i have already
PROVEN this, and all we get back from anyone is RAW MOCKING and
decontextualized indirect garbage NONSENSE. all we have asked for
is someone besides the idiots we seem to always run into to reason
with us. is that too much to ask? evidently, because no one has
been able to do it yet. grief.
> S&F you'll have to try harder if you're going to convince me to
> choose the other side.
i don't have to try breezy: it is G-d that does everything, not me.
why do you perform this blasphemy, trying to say i am like G-d? i'm
not G-d, i'm just a follower. i rebuke you for this...disgusting
blasphemy! when people have a heart that is receptive, they don't
engage in this kind of heresy. jesus said that we would be treated
like dirt for following him. do you get treated like dirt breezy?
no, you're the little friendship king of r.m.c! you're mr. popular!
just like that jerk was in sixth grade...he beat me up and i don't
like him and you're just like him. so you're finally going to get
yours! hahahahahaha! you're going to get yours!
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. hahahahaha!
Ack!
> Help! Now I'm confused! I have two sides of the force calling me!
[respirator breathing sound]
[James Earl Jones voiceover] Release your anger! Come over to the dark side!
Ack!
(insert random quote here)
walterlane
--
Before anyone was "left behind" a battle raged for
the soul of one man. Fearmonger, a novel.
http://www.walterlane.com
"scholar and fool" <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote in message
news:ffd13dc5.02061...@posting.google.com...
Bob Weigel
walterlane <la...@walterlane.com> wrote:
>Ah!
...
Ok...so what's a "goober"? Haven't been following this. Actually...
I think rather than that I'd like to know what some of the nice
posters in here do for a living.
You see....I troubleshoot people's electronic problems for a
living. If I'm not 100% logical and 100% right...I 100% don't
get paid.
But...I do get paid. Nearly always now that I've left Eugene
the land of the living flake. :-) I just wonder how many programmers
or low level engineers are criticizing my reasoning in these...interesting
ways. You see, I would venture a reasonable guess that most of the people
have sales, education, grunt, management/political, or other non-logic
essential type jobs or are on support of some kind.... (thinking it's
unlikely that anyone could be that schitzo in their mental processes...
Randall Schwartz, for example, one of the founding fathers of the
internet as we know it....can't stand me I can tell. But he knows
better than to criticize my reasoning. He wants to stay a heathen
and he knows he can't carry on a logical battle without feeling condemned
by his own mental processes which he has RELIED on in order to write
WORKING CODE for years!! :-) Oops...I'm capsing again. Sorry. Anyway,
the guy mostly steered clear of me while others made fools of themselves.
He may not have great eternal perspective, but at least he is smart.)
So anyway...a "goober"....yess...yess. Some are said to "lack in
social skills". To me that isn't specific enough. What most of the
people who use that phrase mean, is "not good at kissing up to people".
I made a decision long ago. I don't kiss up to anyone. I don't need
*those* kinds of friends. I don't expect anyone to kiss up to me.
In fact...it sickens me if someone tries. My "friends" for years have
been, in terms of time spent, homeless people or special needs type
folks. Maybe I'm talking to a lot of them here. The internet has
this way of masking people's true form. I mean...it's a two sided
thing. In one way...I'm sad if I'd sitting here calling a person
an idiot who...really is one.
Yet I worked a lot the past couple years with one girl who
was classified "mentally handicapped" and I've NEVER heard her fall
into the kind of non-sense pseudo reasoning several here have fallen
into! She has suffered mostly from an attention disorder it appears.
Her mind works perfectly fine. We can reason through things now quite
well. She's learned music theory and even some electronics things from
hanging around here.
But on the other hand, if people are so arrogant in their heart
that they get on here and contest someone as though they are an
authority on things they know nothing about, then....maybe they "earned"
their idiocity. The more I work with people, the more I see that even
those outcast by the education system can think if someone just cares
about them and overcomes whatever boundary exists there. But here, I
find a large percentage of people who don't act like even "mentally
handicapped" people I work with!
I have no explanation except that the human heart is a prideful
deceitful thing. I don't know how the mind can get so fogged that it
can't see cold logic. Or how after what I've written on this topic
someone could say "You never use any logic..nya nya nya" like some
little child on a playground . All I know is...I don't find these
people in "real life" as my friends call it. I keep telling them
"No, these people are quite real...they just..well have special
problems. They've been exalting themselves writing non-sense that
sounds good to them because they wrote it for so long...they have a
form of dimentia." And when you form a culture where there are certain
common beliefs and you alienate all who don't fit in, then it is
actually possible to have "group dimentia". This is seen in various
cult groups where mass suicides have been initiated, etc.
I'm sorry I can't always say nice sounding things. But that
isn't why I'm here. I'm here to tell the truth to those who will hear.
I've used another thing I really don't find interest in (Amy...who?)
as leverage to make certain points about how religion leads people
to become modern day pharisees...and unless we find the source of
that and repent, we will find Jesus calling us the same thing he
called those pharisees. (Children of the devil). If that isn't what
you want to hear from Jesus, then examine your life. Could it be
you've been "serving" a god of your own making? An idol formed
in your own imagination? Or is it the historical Jesus all the way?
If you reject any part of his character, then it was an idol.
Jesus will say "I never knew you". While I won't miss your bickering,
I will miss you and I know God will too. I can't wait for a day when
I'm not lied to anymore. When nobody is looking to see how they can
make someone else look bad. (Like criticizing people for how they
use their grammar while people are slipping into an eternal hell).
Get real with that fact. It's happening. I'd like to think
everyone in this ng is saved but I know about half of them aren't
by their own proclamation. I fear that many others aren't by their
absolute hatred for reasoning in God's word and the way they twist
scriptures and other people's words. But WERE all these people saved,
there's still a world that is largely not. Jesus said there's a shortage
of workers. If this isn't a mission field...then what are we doing
here? Don't we care? Why spend time in a place where nobody can come
to the freedom they so desperately need?
I'm here because I believe it is a mission field. Is that
why I'm a goober? Maybe you can give me another quippy answer for
what it really means..or hey, just add another insult if that's all
you have to do. Every word you say will be judged unless you repent
of the idle ones and come clean with those you have offended. God
has a life for those who want it. -Bob
Breezy
> [respirator breathing sound]
>
> [James Earl Jones voiceover] Release your anger! Come over to the dark
side!
Now I'm even more confused! Next you'll be telling me that you're my
father. The Old Covenant (the law of condemnation and the law of death)
tells me to honor my father. But if I turn from that dark side and trust
soley in Jesus, I'll be hated by everyone in the whole wide world! What's a
Jedi-in-training/True-Christian-wannabe to do?
--
Be free,
Breezy
T.Painter
b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote in news:ae6tmv$i...@garcia.efn.org:
> In article <ae6pe7$4ge9t$1...@ID-71359.news.dfncis.de>,
>
> walterlane <la...@walterlane.com> wrote:
>>Ah!
> ...
> Ok...so what's a "goober"? Haven't been following this. Actually...
> I think rather than that I'd like to know what some of the nice
> posters in here do for a living.
> You see....I troubleshoot people's electronic problems for a
> living. If I'm not 100% logical and 100% right...I 100% don't
> get paid.
<snipped because, well, it just needed snipped...>
Joy
business and I had only applied because it was convenient), work at a
little non-profit ministry that makes Christian educational CD-ROMs
(full-time hours for part-time pay, of course!) and will hopefully
become an English and Philosophy major, next academic year.
Oh wait, I'm not a "critic"... am I allowed to respond? Ah well.
Bob, while I see and respect your view of RMC as a mission field, you
could be a better steward of your time by seeking a field more
'harvestable'. Results here are unmeasurable, sensible people do not
take the internet seriously, and those who are indeed stung by
Spirit-filled words are unlikely to take them to heart and simply
become offended and innoculated to further attempts.
Personally, this is not my mission field. I come here as I would
listen to music, or read a book. (You all could be auto-reply droids
and I'd probably still post. It's intellectually stimulating
entertainment... Ok, maybe just stimulating. ^_^) While I will write
as I feel is my responsibility as a Christian, I'm here "for fun" - I
simply browse and post in my downtime, because television is becoming
increasingly moronic.
Or... I'm just *pretending* to be an unassuming little girl and am out
to sneakily STEAL your souls and DRAG them to heaven!!! Oooooh!!! You
WILL belieeEEEEVE, heathen worms!!!!! <cackle>
peace,
JOY
<((><
scholar and fool
> Ok...so what's a "goober"? Haven't been following this. [...]
> So anyway...a "goober"....yess...yess. Some are said to "lack in
> social skills". To me that isn't specific enough. What most of the
> people who use that phrase mean, is "not good at kissing up to people".
i know you tried really hard to turn it into something to be proud of,
but that "logical progression" was neither. that horrid sound was the
logic train jumping the tracks and turning into a smoldering heap of
metal.
besides that, the "goober" conversation was a quick and short little
lighthearted example i made up to explain attribution and newsgroup
quoting standards to walter. it wasn't a real exchange. congrats!
you just went off an example, what amounts to nothing. might i
suggest following things in the future, so you look a little less
like don quixote...
> Actually...I think rather than that I'd like to know what some of
> the nice posters in here do for a living.
> You see....I troubleshoot people's electronic problems for a
> living. [...] I just wonder how many programmers or low level
> engineers are criticizing my reasoning in these...interesting
> ways. You see, I would venture a reasonable guess that most of
> the people have sales, education, grunt, management/political, or
> other non-logic essential type jobs or are on support of some kind....
> [over 75 lines of chest- and brow-beating rambling mercifully slain]
[1] troubleshooting electronics does not make one a master logician
[2] holding sales, education, grunt, and management/political jobs
does not mean a lack of ability of the person to be logical
[3] holding any "non-logic essential job" does not mean a lack of
ability by the person to be logical or use reasoning
[4] being a programmer or "low level" engineer does not mean one is
always proficient at all types and levels of logic/reasoning
in summary, what you did is simply elitist b.s. posturing. the
sad part is, you do electronics repair and got a science education
degree. of the many people that have the credentials to talk this
kind of elitist smack, you're not included. (ignoring occupation,
witness the smoldering heap of metal out the window to your left
for an immediate proof of bob's skills. or search google for
10 years of extended proofs.)
furthermore, if your occupational assumptions are confirmed then
you're proud of how smashingly smart and accurate you are. if your
assumptions are wrong though, you quickly turn to other devices and
attack techniques (like blaming the failings of your guesses on the
faults of others) to protect your self-interests and deride others.
would you really admit that the programmers and engineers criticizing
you hold sway because of their occupation? of course not. you'd find
some other reason(s) to discount them and their criticisms of you.
so you see, your questioning of people's occupations is quite insipid
and quite irrelevent.
i can't wait to see what i get called for posting this one. : )
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. egads...
Bob Weigel
fact remains, if you apply the kind of logic where you have in
your own mind that you've documented some kind of sin against
another person, but nobody knows about it, you are stuck with
something amiss from biblical proceedures. That is "human
wisdom" type "pseudo logic". Not truth based logic. The only
sin I have accused YOU of is arrogantly accusing me. Some
people actually had the nerve to say "it's all the same"...???
Anyway, if you apply that kind of reasoning in my field, you
did almost immediately. In some jobs you can get away with
it for a long long time because you have a schmoozy personality
or whatever. But you can't continually use fractured logic
dealing with real world problems, or eventually you will lose
your job....except I supposed in some large companies where
you manage to say the right things to supervisors, blame your
idiocity on others, etc.
I have nobody to blame it on. It's just me. And I win on
nearly all the puzzles I take on. Some people have said that I
am incapable of making logical asessemnts and stuff. They are
obviously not well informed. Others I believe would do well
to get less insulated from reality and suffer a little humiliation
in the real world before they try to criticize me on things they
don't seem to understand. That's all I was saying. -Bob
In article <130620022125500549%ethan...@spammail.com>,
Ethan D. Rogati <ethan...@spammail.com> wrote:
>In article <ffd13dc5.02061...@posting.google.com>, scholar
>and fool <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote:
>
>> i can't wait to see what i get called for posting this one. : )
>
>A brave but masochistic little man. =)
>
>--
>e
>spam can be good when hot
>come see the content-challenged web page!
>http://www.geocities.com/ethanic.geo/
Bruce A. Brown
t_p...@bellsouth.net wrote on 6/12/02 7:54 PM:
And 100% proof that 99.9% of tech wonks are 99.9% devoid of social
interaction skills...
John Persons
Bob Weigel wrote:
>
> your job....except I supposed in some large companies where
> you manage to say the right things to supervisors, blame your
> idiocity on others, etc.
I for one will take full credit for my own idiocity, whatever
that is.
> I have nobody to blame it on. It's just me. And I win on
> nearly all the puzzles I take on.
If only human beings and God were as simple as electronics...
--
John Persons
j...@cob.osu.edu
Bob Weigel
met don't know jack about electronics. :-) They know a bunch of
"high level" practical fixes for things. But when they are confronted
with an actual low level logic puzzle, (usually analog...those can
be a little tougher than actual logic because it requires more
in depth understanding. I had a guy from Texas send me a whole amp
chassis the other day because he got frustrated with it. The company
responsible for it now gave him partial information that just got him
into more trouble....)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that EVEN in MY field, there aren't that
many people who are good. But even those people get slapped around
by those kinds of problems and it brings a healthy perspective....it
lowers them from "know it all" status.
Now surely, I'm saying, if a person can't even work logic problems
that involve purely physical elements, they are going to bomb out royal
when it comes to human interaction things....at least according to you. :-)
For me though, I find it's much easier to see clearly what's going
on after a few conversations with people on the internet often because
they go and say something that is just so totally broken that it reveals
fallacy in their life.
For example with MIKE recently, he says things that conflict with
well known scriptures. I reveal this and he says my reasoning against
his assertion means nothing because it was a "parody". I try to
explain that even a parody must have some basis or it's just stupid.
Rather than apologizing he just goes right on to criticize me in other
silly ways. Thus it is obvious MIKE has a preoccupation with criticizing
me for whatever reason and I'm not going to be able to reason with him.
Done. Run time approx. 40 minutes.
A good electronic puzzle can take days to solve. And of course some
human things might never get solved. I'm just saying both have a wide
range of difficulties and most of the people I'm dealing with here make
it kind of easy because they lead with their emotions, and get all
"Defensively offensive".
I believe it is God's will that we discern in such cases. Jesus
flat walked away from his home town. He didn't hang around and try
to impress them with his etiquette. Phooey. No he just discerned
that they had a "terminal obstacle" he labelled "lack of faith" and
he could do nothing for them. There were others who might hear so he
instead went to them. I believe there are people here who might hear
pieces of the truth they've somehow missed, and others who will object
to the truth. So, rather than ignoring them, I try to deal with their
objections until it is obvious they are intentionally twisting things
to try to personally discredit me...though it has nothing to do with
me and the truth presented is still presented for those who want it. -Bob
In article <3D09F66F...@cob.osu.edu>,
Bob Weigel
Logic Joy...logic. Did I ever indicate that this was a bi-directional
thing? :-) Just because I bet that most of the people criticizing me
had jobs where they didn't HAVE to employ hard core logic (and by the
lack of responses my confidence is bolstered....) does not mean that I'm
saying people who DO seem to be able to write logically don't have
burger flipping jobs or whatever. That's why I didn't post a survey
for the non-critics.
The point here is that your format is vastly different. Snails
is vastly different. Most of the other people just write nasty stuff
without regard to whether it is making sense. Sorry to say. You seem
to think netiquette is important. WERE (yes I'm emphasizing because
I've said this several times and I'm getting tired of it. If you don't
want to see caps...don't keep saying things that have already been
dispelled) this a case where there was an established authority, or
a case where there is no conceivable reason why someone might want
to BREAK the "standard" many keep...I could see where you might
have somewhere to go arguing.
But as it stands, those are not the case. So realize that if
I feel led of the spirit I will definitly try to use caps. If it
fits my humorous mood I may even use caps as I did recently. If it
isn't wrong, then I never discount the possibility that it might be
a good thing at some time.
What I observe is a "society" of people who are so bland in
the way they communicate that I don't think they are as effective
as they might be even if they did have something to say. :-) Figure
that one out. Heheh. So, like I say, boooorrrring. There's nothing
to talk about there. I'm not sinning by using caps. I may very
well be obeying God to use caps. Who are you to judge another
man's servant? It's a big world of possibilities. Don't be so
narrow. Ok? -Bob
In article <29ff3ad6.02061...@posting.google.com>,
Joy
<snip>
> But as it stands, those are not the case. So realize that if
> I feel led of the spirit I will definitly try to use caps. If it
Actually, I have no problem with caps - I just thought I'd point out
that other people might, and that it affects your delivery. But wait,
are you replying in the right thread? I didn't say a word about caps
in the previous post...
peace,
JOY
<((><
Bob Weigel
aka "schmoozing" skills...aka being "guiseful"....aka "Kissing up and
telling people what they want to hear". HERE is an example of my
"lack of social interaction skills". Yesterday I go down to my
friend's baptism at "bozeman beach". (We have a pond with this "razor
sand".....nice beach) Anyway, I'm hanging out with Elisha and the
gang.. some of you possibly have met at cornerstone. These people
get down there all the time. I saw them talking to exactly ZERO people
from outside their group.
Meanwhile, I talked to them, made a couple disenfranchised former
hang out people feel welcome again and we all played hack and had a
good time.... I invited a couple strangers to play volleyball with
us when everyone ELSE was IGNORING them. One of them turned out to
be a friend of one of my neighbors who then came over and joined us
with another friend and I got to meet them and talk to them quite a
bit.
After that someone started playing gangster rap out of a white truck
and I saw it was distrubing others and there were lots of kids running
around heraing "You bleeping mother bleepin...." and EVERYONE ELSE thought
that was just fine to allow and I went over and put a stop to it in a kind
way.... and THEN one of THOSE guys and his kid came over and joined us
in volleyball and he had a cross around his neck and I got to talk to
him and find out he is a believer and I invited him to come over for
fellowship anytime.
So....I guess compared to most other people...I have GOOD
social skills. I think the fact is that there are a lot of really
nasty people in this group; you not being the least of. I'm sorry
that's the case but..hey..reality has struck. You are a prime
example occupationally of what I'm referring to. You get by saying
the right things in people's eyes. Not being logical.
Thanks for re-emphasizing that for all of us and showing how
badly you misrepresent the character of those you don't like. -Bob
Susan Anderson
: Logic Joy...logic. Did I ever indicate that this was a bi-directional
: thing? :-) Just because I bet that most of the people criticizing me
: had jobs where they didn't HAVE to employ hard core logic (and by the
: lack of responses my confidence is bolstered....)
I didn't respond before, but I will now. I'm a software
engineer for a large company that mostly does government
defense contract work. I have to employ hard core logic
every single day. Scored in the 98th percentile on the
"logic" portion of the GRE and was called "the most logical
person I've ever met" by a math teacher I once had. All of
that, and most of time, I just can't follow you Bob...so
I've mostly given up trying.
Susan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan
kee...@visi.com
Bob Weigel
you also. I sad that I hadn't been following the thread and
really didn't care what a "goober" was...changed the TITLE of
the thread....and then you tell me I did a boo boo by going
off on something unrelated. :-) That's...pretty silly is it not? -Bob
In article <ffd13dc5.02061...@posting.google.com>,
Bob Weigel
Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>: Logic Joy...logic. Did I ever indicate that this was a bi-directional
>: thing? :-) Just because I bet that most of the people criticizing me
>: had jobs where they didn't HAVE to employ hard core logic (and by the
>: lack of responses my confidence is bolstered....)
>
>I didn't respond before, but I will now. I'm a software
>engineer for a large company that mostly does government
>defense contract work. I have to employ hard core logic
>every single day. Scored in the 98th percentile on the
Right, and you know enough not to criticize me for saying that
Breezy's apology was BS, that MIKE has no logical leg to stand
on in his assaults, etc. Well done. You are a cut above the rest.
>"logic" portion of the GRE and was called "the most logical
>person I've ever met" by a math teacher I once had. All of
>that, and most of time, I just can't follow you Bob...so
>I've mostly given up trying.
>
? We've never had real good interactions. It seemed to hinge
around certain beliefs you wanted to hold to and that we never
really got down to "hard core logic" with regard to those things.
Had you employed the type of logic you employed in some of those
conversations in your day job, I dare say you'd be doing a differernt
day job. It is always possible for people to get emotionally
attached to something and not use logic in that realm.
That wasn't my point. My point was that most people who AT
LEAST have a discipline of logic SOMEWHERE in their life don't
just go on and on when they know they are losing the battle. Wisely,
you bowed out and trivialized it as "not being able to understand" me.
In truth, I would persist in trying different approaches, clarifying
terms, etc. until you understood every thing I am saying. But you
were not willing to go there without, yourself, resorting to
emotional based insults and stuff. Remember? Shall we go back
and view some of those? As I recall we has several Susan's in the
past several years and all of them got to that point a time or two. :-)
If Deja goes back that far we should have no problem pulling out exactly
what went on.
Anyway, I'm always willing to try to clarify anything you don't
understand...but I will not be mocked and insulted for no good reason.
-Bob
>Susan
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Susan
>kee...@visi.com
>
Troy Miller
> Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>: Logic Joy...logic. Did I ever indicate that this was a bi-directional
>: thing? :-) Just because I bet that most of the people criticizing me
>: had jobs where they didn't HAVE to employ hard core logic (and by the
>: lack of responses my confidence is bolstered....)
>
> I didn't respond before, but I will now. I'm a software
> engineer for a large company that mostly does government
> defense contract work. I have to employ hard core logic
> every single day. Scored in the 98th percentile on the
> "logic" portion of the GRE and was called "the most logical
> person I've ever met" by a math teacher I once had. All of
> that, and most of time, I just can't follow you Bob...so
> I've mostly given up trying.
I'm afraid I'll have to echo Susan's sentiment. I am also a software
engineer, my company also does work for the government as well as anyone
else who has loads of $$$ to pay for the really fast shtuff (SGI), and any
survey conducted among anyone I know as to who the most logical person
they are acquainted with will almost uanimously declare me #1.
Of course, you'd have to:
:s/I've mostly given up trying/I've put Bob in my killfile, the only
person to have that honor/
Btw, Susan - what company do you work for? I had to do an employee lookup
on you here, just to make sure it wasn't us!
Troy
Bob Weigel
himself because he knows he can't transfer the logic he is
forced to use in his workplace to the discussion without
sacrificing the values which make him toss occasional potshots.
(Note that I'm saying this only in respect to the unqualified
insults you've spoken of me in the past; similar to Tim's as I recall.)
Precisely my point. Interesting you are replying Troy. :-)
I would sure have a lot more respect for you if you came
forth and contributed when someone like MIKE is going off
the deep end missing point after point. But as it is...in
a way I guess I respect MIKE more. It's obvious from his
posts that he just doesn't have the background to do what
you and Susan and myself are trained to do. Yet until it
comes to what you perceive as an opportunity to "Bob bash"
you hold your tongues in the sight of unprecidented non-sense.
Kind of strangely funny in a way. And yes this question
was designed as a "catch all" of sorts. I even gave an example
and tried to tip you off (remember the bit about the programmer
fellow in the other discussion, Randall Schwartz, who acts a
LOT like the two of you; knows to keep his trap shut most of
the time yet takes non-context oritented potshots from time to time??)
but you still replied to reinforce my point! What a blessing.
Marvelous! Thank you. Unnecessary, but thank you. -Bob
In article <slrnagsccm...@yort.americas.sgi.com>,
scholar and fool
> > engineer for a large company that mostly does government
> > defense contract work. I have to employ hard core logic
> > every single day. Scored in the 98th percentile on the
> > "logic" portion of the GRE and was called "the most logical
> > person I've ever met" by a math teacher I once had. All of
> > that, and most of time, I just can't follow you Bob...so
> > I've mostly given up trying.
>
> I'm afraid I'll have to echo Susan's sentiment. I am also a software
> engineer, my company also does work for the government as well as anyone
> else who has loads of $$$ to pay for the really fast shtuff (SGI), and any
> survey conducted among anyone I know as to who the most logical person
> they are acquainted with will almost uanimously declare me #1.
>
> Of course, you'd have to:
>
> :s/I've mostly given up trying/I've put Bob in my killfile, the only
> person to have that honor/
sssshhh. don't tell bob, but i actually have an engineering degree
(aerospace) and have spent a decent portion of my worklife writing and
modifying code.
i've not cared to mention it and don't feel the need to elaborate
because [1] i don't think it will matter one bit and [2] i think using
your occupation as proof of your skills instead of the quality of your
work that is visible is pretentious and lame. people should think you
are logical because you use logic, not because you're employeed in a
certain field.
even if we *were* going to use bob's standards...he troubleshoots
electronics. he has a science education degree. he does not have
any kind of credentials in philosophy, language, theology, or any
other thing that i am aware of that would show he has a background
to authoritatively discuss logical argumentation on most things he
talks about. even by his own standards he fails to pass muster.
it doesn't matter how good bob is at fixing electronics, the fact is
that he is unable to effectively communicate his ideas or interact
with others online. the fact is what he claims as "logic" and
"proof" are actually mostly opinion and conjecture on his part.
worst of all, it is many times conjecture about the motivations,
thoughts, and desires of those he is arguing with, which he uses to
suggest faults and failures about them. he blames his own failings
to communicate on the inability of others to understand logic and
reason, regardless of how many people can't understand him and/or do
understand his opposition. he rambles disjointedly, and is as likely
(if not more so) to use insults and put-downs or tell stories as he
is to use any logic. he doesn't abide by his own stated standards.
he uses appeals to authority, misdirection, and strawmen arguments
in blatent ways to attempt to strengthen his positions. he behaves
as if he fails to understand that it doesn't matter how much logic
one employees if the assumptions are wrong.
in short, he's created a view of himself that is unrealistic and
damages his credibility and likeableness online. i can't say with
any authority how it affects his interactions in real life, but
based on some of his stories it sounds like some of it is there too.
unfortunately, this is a self-fulfilling maladaptive behaviour
because he thinks he is being "punished for righteousness' sake"
and thus being rewarded for being unlikeable, so things don't get
any better.
then he wonders why people don't stand up for him when he is actually
in the right. who wants to give a hand to someone that has spit on
and insulted you? (and even gone further to label it is caring about
you.) and will probably do so again as soon as they've got the chance.
none of this is anything that hasn't been said before, and i have no
reason to doubt will be said many more times in the future. and i've
little doubt that bob will respond with some snide crack about never
being able to tell i'm an engineer, or i must be a poor one, or i
must be employeed by idiots, or some such purely conjectural insult.
whatever. all necessary proof about anything i've said is available
here on r.m.c and/or google for anyone that cares to look.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. so what.
Bob Weigel
for really quick people like you who study gravitational dynamics
using their own SKULL as the primary mass due to the budget constraints in
finding an object of density.......sorry...but as bugs said "you're asking
for it".) I am NOT SAYING (yelling...again to emphasize for the hard
of seeing...like yourself...) that people criticizing me don't have
occupations that use logic. I'm saying that the ones who TRY TO
DEBATE ME (rather than just do quippy one lines or mock me...) are not
usually trained in logic. To them, I guess they are actually confused
enough about logic to think they are winning when their arguments make
no sense to someone trained in logic.
However I've found that people like yourself don't dare engage
in a technical "logic discussion" because they know there is a conflict
of interest between their agenda and the outcome. THus, they resort
to mocking, false claims of past "victory", etc.
Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
list, I doubt you flip burgers either. But I know one thing. You
cannot now and never have been able to post something to justify
your pissy attitude towards me. And because you DISTORT the truth
I unleash the above on you. I would never do that had you not
tried to distort the truth. But you did. So I jab you about
being dense. In reality...I know you aren't dense. And that's
sad. Because that means you are distorting the truth. The truth
was spoken clearly several times. I know you heard. Yet you
went right on to try to make an outdated attack on my character.
Must feel real good. -Bob
In article <ffd13dc5.02062...@posting.google.com>,
Joy
is somewhat foolish and illogical. But even if it wasn't, the majority
of the best debaters and even the great Christian apologists of our
time have never been engaged in science-y fields or computing or
whatever. Philosophers, linguists, theologians, etc... those with
knowledge of the stuff being debated *and* the skill to get their
point across coherently and succintly, are the best debaters. It
doesn't matter if you have brilliant logical skill and can
troubleshoot electronics or program a computer in Braille - mere
logical skill is not what makes a good debater.
peace,
JOY
<((><
Bob Weigel
Joy <quee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>With all this logic-talk... is 'logic' really necessary? Christianity
>is somewhat foolish and illogical. But even if it wasn't, the majority
Not. Logic = truth Joy by definition. In logic, one uses a "truth
table" to evaluate the "logical interaction" of known variables and
so on. God is completely logical. God's ways are completely logical.
When a person *claims* to be making a "logical assertion", one
should be able to examine the foundations and interaction of all
those foundations and logically trace how they came to that conclusion.
Otherwise, they are lying/deceived.
For example, a person might claim that they refuse to believe
in the resurrection because it is "illogical". I would ask them to
label the foundations and the truth table for their claim. They
would flounder around and ultimately rest on the faulty foundational
assumption that ONLY PROVEN PHYSICAL LAWS are admissible in supporting
what is "possible". All things which rely on other things are "illogical"
according to these people.
However, anyone who has taken algebra knows that the burden of
proof is on those who claim that, for instance, spiritual forces do
not exist, to exhaustively prove that claim. Otherwise such a claim
is not admissible itself! So the claims of hard core atheists who
say they know there is no God are actually foolish just as the bible
says, according to real logic.
In reality land, we have 500 witnesses who saw the resurrection.
In an unbiased logical evaluation of that claim, we must view the
entire picture and make a best judgement of what happened. We must
remember that man has always learned a little bit at a time about
things and it would be VERY narrow minded to just throw away the
reports of these witnesses because we currently don't understand
the process by which this might have occurred!
In evaluation of the motivational template (you have a bunch of
people who had given up hope and had gone back to their day jobs, who
all the sudden were willing to die to support a claim that Christ
had risen!!! To gain....what? Were Christ not truly risen, to
gain persecution which nobody wants. ) we see that the support that
this claim was valid is enourmous! Nobody is claiming it happened
by physical means. And each person knows they have a choice and
there is no explanation for THAT in the physical universe, so this
should open each person up to realizing that it is most logical
to examine this claim in their own heart. Not try to refute it by
association with methods that it never claimed to have taken place
by.
So there's one easy to understand example. Your definition of
logic is obviously not the technical one. People like S+F claim
to use logic here. There type of logic, as I pointed out, is
just old human pseudo-wisdom of the form "You are too critical"...
which amounts to nagging. There is no foundation to it. THerefore
it fails the test of true logic.
For many people here, I use logic in association with the
scriptures because they claim to believe the scriptures. This
has the wonderful effect of usually ticking them off because in
reality, they want to believe a distorted view of the scriptures,
and when I have the nerve to go and put together a logical truth
table formed from the assertions in the scripture they know exist,
they just hate me for it. Game over dude and all that. -Bob
Mattias Hembruch
>Right. It doesn't matter a bit. As I said (for the third time..just
>for really quick people like you who study gravitational dynamics
>using their own SKULL as the primary mass due to the budget constraints in
>finding an object of density.......sorry...but as bugs said "you're asking
>for it".) I am NOT SAYING (yelling...again to emphasize for the hard
>of seeing...like yourself...) that people criticizing me don't have
>occupations that use logic. I'm saying that the ones who TRY TO
>DEBATE ME (rather than just do quippy one lines or mock me...) are not
>usually trained in logic. To them, I guess they are actually confused
>enough about logic to think they are winning when their arguments make
>no sense to someone trained in logic.
> However I've found that people like yourself don't dare engage
>in a technical "logic discussion" because they know there is a conflict
>of interest between their agenda and the outcome. THus, they resort
>to mocking, false claims of past "victory", etc.
> Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
>list, I doubt you flip burgers either.
Ok, so now you're calling him an out and out liar about something you know
nothing about?
Isn't there something about bearing false witness in the Bible?
Mattias
scholar and fool
see? i said bob'd have some way of dismissing things. it's laughable
that you doubt the qualifications that i listed. it's yet another bit
of your irrational paranoia having to suspect things to support your
warped reality. i didn't claim anything grandiose...only that i have
an aerospace engineering degree and my worklife has involved a good
bit of writing and modifying code. it's completely irrational of you
to have to "seriously" doubt that. stick to what you know.
this, like the rest of the post, was just more typical conjectural
crap you use to mentally justify your irrational positions. it's
dysfunctional.
most your logic is not logic. most your positions are not based on
factual, verifiable positions but on opinion and conjecture. logical
people don't argue with you for very long using logic because you
are not logical. they either stop trying and ignore you or stop
trying and start making fun of your absurd positions. they know
that they can't have a meaningful conversation with an irrational
person.
like i said in the last post - nothing that hasn't been said before,
and nothing that will not likely be said lots of times in the future.
i was quite serious in the past when i recommended that you seek some
kind of professional counselling. you can't interact properly with
people on here. maybe not in real life either. and i doubt it will
get any better on its own. take the chance to improve your life.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. silly.
Bob Weigel
post a logical asessment of some specific words someone says. What
words were you referring to that you concluded that insulting thing?
There is something about offending people on a whim for sure. In what
way did I bear false witness? On the other hand WHY should I even
give you a second chance when it's obvious you are just functionally
trolling here? I can't think of a reason. -Bob
In article <af2ekm$8o1$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
Bob Weigel
relevant information aside, like in the recent example where you
still ignore my point previously made to both Susan and the other
fellow and just go on ranting as though no such words were spoken)
It is difficult to get such a degree without a great amount of discipline
in your thinking. See? I don't care to read the rest of your letter
again. See? I don't care about you having the writing style of a
5th grader when you make such claims. See? I'm ready to ask you
all kinds of questions that would reveal quickly whether that's
true or not but I haven't gotten any serious response from other
questions I've asked you on basic logic issues that don't require
an extensive physics background. So why would I bother? See? -Bob
In article <ffd13dc5.02062...@posting.google.com>,
scholar and fool <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote:
Mattias Hembruch
>Matthias,
Note: No 'h' in Mattias.
>if you were interested in constructive dialogue, you would
>post a logical asessment of some specific words someone says.
I did. Here, just in case you missed it, are the SPECIFIC words YOU said:
>>> Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
>>>list, I doubt you flip burgers either.
That, to me, is calling someone a liar. I've met S&F. I believe him when he
says he's an engineer.
You're calling a brother in Christ a liar concerning his statement of his
occupation. I believe that's bearing false witness.
Mattias
Mattias Hembruch
>> Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
>> list, [...]
>
>see? i said bob'd have some way of dismissing things. it's laughable
>that you doubt the qualifications that i listed. it's yet another bit
>of your irrational paranoia having to suspect things to support your
>warped reality. i didn't claim anything grandiose...only that i have
>an aerospace engineering degree and my worklife has involved a good
>bit of writing and modifying code. it's completely irrational of you
>to have to "seriously" doubt that. stick to what you know.
Yes, it's the main reason I didn't mention that I'm a Lecturer in Computer
Engineering (MASc).
Of course, even if I told him to go check out the UW home pages where I'm
listed as a faculty member, he'd find some way to claim ece.uwaterloo.ca is
my personal machine and I faked 25+ departmental web pages..
Mattias
Joy
> I doubt it because you write in an undisciplined fashion.
Not to be picky or anything, but you aren't the most 'disciplined'
writer either, Bob. ^_^
<cheer>
I say pot and you say me!
Pot!
Me!
Pot!
Me!
I say black and you say kettle!
Kettle!
Black!
Kettle!
Black!
Wooooooooooooo!!!!
</cheer>
peace,
JOY
<((><
Bob Weigel
Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <af34gk$f...@garcia.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>>Matthias,
>
>Note: No 'h' in Mattias.
>
>>if you were interested in constructive dialogue, you would
>>post a logical asessment of some specific words someone says.
You listed it nowhere near what you were talking about. I don't
give a flying rip about spelling names right until you take account
for what you do.
>
>I did. Here, just in case you missed it, are the SPECIFIC words YOU said:
>
>>>> Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
>>>>list, I doubt you flip burgers either.
>
>That, to me, is calling someone a liar. I've met S&F. I believe him when he
>says he's an engineer.
From his insulting non-logic oritented monologue (tons of references available
as we said), I doubt it. Because he's equally called me a liar and
has no desire to reconcile, I already know he's a liar in that respect because
I am not lying about anything. But like I say, HAD he been reading he'd
have had the knowledge that his occupation, were it NOT a burger flipper/
salesman type job, would not matter. My comment was only directed at
people like MIKE who have been consistently doing something they call
"reasoning" with me.
Were it not for the precidence he's set in previous encounters I would
certainly not speculate about such things. But he's been a total ass
to me. I know of NOBODY in the realm of science professionals who
stoops to the kind of non-sensical attacks this person has posted... or
is even capable of such. If he is...he's very unique. But his credibility
is long ago shot with me and he certainly isn't functioning in the
biblical respect of a brother. He holds things against me which are
undocumentable apparently. And freely rails on me using "them" as his
foundation. Ptewieee.
-Bob
Bob Weigel
bare. Hence I went to the work of QUALIFYING the statement
after I finished the article. Huh..where did my work go..? Joyyy..
not slipping into troll status now are we? :-) -Bob
In article <29ff3ad6.02062...@posting.google.com>,
Joy <quee...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob Weigel
probably telling the truth. Yet as I said (what five times now?)
it has nothing to do with my original question. You ALSO have
been quiet until now. TRIPLE proves my point. Thank you. -Bob
PS the only funny part is that you pipe up now and prove my
point...it's like you just aren't getting a good grade on
reading comprehension today. :-) Especially after seeing a
couple other people go through the same thing.
In article <af3mgd$mm1$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
Mattias Hembruch
> Yet in a way you are really dense right now. I'm SURE you are
>probably telling the truth. Yet as I said (what five times now?)
>it has nothing to do with my original question. You ALSO have
>been quiet until now. TRIPLE proves my point. Thank you. -Bob
I wasn't talking to you, wait your turn. Silence = assent? Please..
>PS the only funny part is that you pipe up now and prove my
>point...it's like you just aren't getting a good grade on
>reading comprehension today. :-) Especially after seeing a
>couple other people go through the same thing.
Comprehension in what sense? I was not trying to prove anything to you, Bob.
I wasn't even talking to you. YOU are the one who failed the reading
comprehension there, thinking I was talking to you.
Mattias
Mattias Hembruch
>In article <af3m9c$mil$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>In article <af34gk$f...@garcia.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>>>Matthias,
>>
>>Note: No 'h' in Mattias.
>>
>>>if you were interested in constructive dialogue, you would
>>>post a logical asessment of some specific words someone says.
>
>You listed it nowhere near what you were talking about. I don't
>give a flying rip about spelling names right until you take account
>for what you do.
Account for what I do? In what sense?
>>I did. Here, just in case you missed it, are the SPECIFIC words YOU said:
>>
>>>>> Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
>>>>>list, I doubt you flip burgers either.
>>
>>That, to me, is calling someone a liar. I've met S&F. I believe him when he
>>says he's an engineer.
>
>From his insulting non-logic oritented monologue (tons of references available
>as we said), I doubt it. Because he's equally called me a liar and has no
>desire to reconcile, I already know he's a liar in that respect because I
>am not lying about anything.
So, because someone sins against you, it's okay to sin back against them??
>But like I say, HAD he been reading he'd have had the knowledge that his
>occupation, were it NOT a burger flipper/ salesman type job, would not
>matter. My comment was only directed at
>people like MIKE who have been consistently doing something they call
>"reasoning" with me.
No, your comment was NOT directed at Mike - you specifically responded to
S&F saying: I highly doubt you're an engineer.
> Were it not for the precidence he's set in previous encounters I would
>certainly not speculate about such things. But he's been a total ass
>to me. I know of NOBODY in the realm of science professionals who
>stoops to the kind of non-sensical attacks this person has posted... or
>is even capable of such.
Maybe you don't know many people in the realm of science professionals then.
They can be as nasty and "ass-like" as anyone else.
>If he is...he's very unique. But his credibility is long ago shot with me
>and he certainly isn't functioning in the biblical respect of a brother.
Ok. But does that matter, really? Is it ok to bear false witness against a
non-brother?
Mattias
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
[snip]
Please (_please_) stop poking the crazy person. Please.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~vapspwi %%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
scholar and fool
> With all this logic-talk... is 'logic' really necessary? Christianity
> is somewhat foolish and illogical.
i'm afraid i'll have to disagree vehemently with this bit. but
it's not consequential to my main point, so let's continue. : )
> But even if it wasn't, the majority
> of the best debaters and even the great Christian apologists of our
> time have never been engaged in science-y fields or computing or
> whatever. Philosophers, linguists, theologians, etc... those with
> knowledge of the stuff being debated *and* the skill to get their
> point across coherently and succintly, are the best debaters. It
> doesn't matter if you have brilliant logical skill and can
> troubleshoot electronics or program a computer in Braille - mere
> logical skill is not what makes a good debater.
being a good debater is not really about truth anyway, though.
the thing to note is that being an engineer or programmer or having
a job that requires one to use logic does not indicate that the person
is going to be any good at all at philosophical or theological topics.
one can use superb logic and still be completely wrong. one can be a
programmer or engineer and only be good at using logic in certain ways,
or only using certain aspects of logic. this is something that i had
mentioned in at least one other post, if not multiple ones.
as an aside (that bob can choose to "seriously doubt" as well...ha!),
my wife got dual undergraduate degrees in philosophy and english and
is currently working on a master's in philosophy. much of her interests
are in the philosophical implications of quantum physics and such.
(which is why she has the heisenberg uncertainty principle equations
tattooed on one of her arms, but i digress.) i can say with some amount
of certainty that engineers and programmers (and electronic techs with
sci ed degrees, too) aren't the be-all and end-all masters of logic.
as another aside, i was watching a show last night that was talking
about how schizophrenics can be completely logical but still be utterly
dillusional. how? because their premises are wrong. it's sort of like
a fridge - put good food in and it'll keep it good, but if you put bad
food in it doesn't make it good. logic only allows one to maintain the
truth of what it is working on. if what one starts with is bad...but
then anyone so well versed in logic as bob is knows that.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. logically.
Bob Weigel
Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <af4q30$c...@garcia.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>>In article <af3m9c$mil$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>In article <af34gk$f...@garcia.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>>>>Matthias,
>>>
>>>Note: No 'h' in Mattias.
>>>
>>>>if you were interested in constructive dialogue, you would
>>>>post a logical asessment of some specific words someone says.
>>
>>You listed it nowhere near what you were talking about. I don't
>>give a flying rip about spelling names right until you take account
>>for what you do.
>
>Account for what I do? In what sense?
You posted my entire article and put that "liar" snip on the bottom.
You could have been referring to anything in that letter. People
ROUTINELY say things like that about me yet you NEVER say they
are liars. Hypocrit. And you expect me to dig that out of the
full text. You are either a full blown idiot or you aren't taking
account for what you do STILL. Take your pick. I have nothing
else to say to you until you apologize for insinuating that it
was some lacking on MY part that I didn't just pick right
up on what you were trying to prove.
Secondly, unless you can understand that after someone ridicules
me and doesn't apologize when I tell them it's an offense to me,
as they MISREPRESENT MY WORDS (and hence lie/bear false witness of
sorts...though it's not very damaging because anyone who isn't an
idiot can see that I wasn't saying what the context clipping delinquent
claimed.) OVER and OVER... why I don't consider them a brother OR
a souce of reliable testimony about ANYTHING....then I'm afraid
I have to consider you in the same boat pal.
You also have a long history of saying nasty little things but
never taking the time to get to know why I'm saying what I say without
throwing accusations at me; of a more subtle nature than some of the
less schooled here, but still the same thing basically. BELOW it
appears you want to somewhat reason...though as I point out you
jump to the most EVIL DEMEANING assumptions about why I say things
that you can...rather than asking me and being nice. You're just
another nasty fellow I'm afraid and I really don't have time to
do more than defray this once for you.
>
>
>>>I did. Here, just in case you missed it, are the SPECIFIC words YOU said:
>>>
>>>>>> Now while I doubt seriously that you have the qualifications you
>>>>>>list, I doubt you flip burgers either.
>>>
>>>That, to me, is calling someone a liar. I've met S&F. I believe him when he
>>>says he's an engineer.
>>
>>From his insulting non-logic oritented monologue (tons of references available
>>as we said), I doubt it. Because he's equally called me a liar and has no
>>desire to reconcile, I already know he's a liar in that respect because I
>>am not lying about anything.
>
>So, because someone sins against you, it's okay to sin back against them??
This is a totally strange assumption. Look. There are several logical
possibilities. You CLAIM to be one of the people here in a job that
requires logic? Perhaps I should pray that the lord reminds you that
this kind of logic won't fly at work? Here's why (note how I always
include this "here's why" part...which you have the OPTION in a logic
debate to post in it's full context and refute??? Notice how nobody
ever does? :-) )
1) I am not aware of any sin I've committed against S+F. If he posts
faulty logic over and over for the purpose of mocking me, and I point
that out is that sin? If I publically say I'm not considering what
he says as valid because he's misrepresented my words over and over
without a single real apology, is that sin? Of course not! JESUS
RIGHTLY called people exactly what they were in public often.
2) you at least hint that maybe I've been sinned against. That
has to be the first reasonably decent thing anyone's said for
weeks in that respect. But haven't you thought that were I in
the state the presumptuous people here keep saying I'm in that
I'd get all bitter and unable to think right? :-) In reality,
I'm quite unaffected by all this non-sense. TO ME..it's just
that. A bunch of people who have nothing better to do with
their time for the most part. I speak for the sake of those
who are wanting to really profit through this discussion. I
have no reason to be bitter against S+F. To me he's just a
confused person who wants to stay that way and hence has become
fodder for making various points. If anyone can't read his responses
in context to my letters and figure out this guy has gone WAY
downhill then...again what can I do but pity?
>
>>But like I say, HAD he been reading he'd have had the knowledge that his
>>occupation, were it NOT a burger flipper/ salesman type job, would not
>>matter. My comment was only directed at
>>people like MIKE who have been consistently doing something they call
>>"reasoning" with me.
>
>
>No, your comment was NOT directed at Mike - you specifically responded to
>S&F saying: I highly doubt you're an engineer.
>
YES you missed some background Mr. Presumptuous. WHEN I STARTED THIS
THREAD (yes, it twer I...) I started it to point out that a lot
of these people are wasting their lives POSING as authorities in their
own minds when they haven't even had the background to realize that
these non-sense assertions they make DO NOT WORK IN REAL LIFE. FOLLOW?
GOOD. Now eat some crow or you'll start looking just LIKE Mike to me;
a guy so proud of himself that he can't even see when he's made an error.
MEANWHILE in the recent post, after S+F replied to a reply (dang
I remember good sometimes....consider I don't give a rip at this point...)
to my original thread, I said I highly doubt he's an aerospace engineer
in context (because as I said he's habitually twisted anything he can to
attempt to make me look bad for SOME time, and the style by which he wrote
it and all made it look much the same....besides the fact that he chose
aerospace engineer the most esteemed of all). and then I noted it didn't
have to do with my original assertion ANYWAY.
Now that I've said that for the 6th time, let me shoot you with
your own gun sir. Here. Thank you BANG! What's that? Too quick
for you you say? Very well then. Let me slowwww iittt doowwnnnn for
youuuuuuu:
Who was it who said that I wouldn't believe HE was on staff in
such and such a position even if you sent me the web page for
the university? Hmmmm. Yet I've never said that you were not. I
discern in fact you are. So because of the WAY you said it (now
remember, it's not always what you say but the way you say it
that makes people unable to hear you?? :-) Well...I hear
anyway.) in the authoritative, that makes you a liar too sir.
There's something you can proudly frame with the rest of your
qualifications. MATTIAS! Can we just have an apology for this
presumptuous stuff so we can move on? I mean...sorry. You
outright accused me of something I didn't even do! I SPECULATED
in the sight of this absurd sounding claim coming from a guy who's
already established himself to be a "conversation crook". Quite
a difference, don't you think?
>
>> Were it not for the precidence he's set in previous encounters I would
>>certainly not speculate about such things. But he's been a total ass
>>to me. I know of NOBODY in the realm of science professionals who
>>stoops to the kind of non-sensical attacks this person has posted... or
>>is even capable of such.
>
>Maybe you don't know many people in the realm of science professionals then.
>They can be as nasty and "ass-like" as anyone else.
>
ps actually I worked at the Institute of Molecular Biology for 8 years
at University of Oregon and before that at Oregon State Physics while
going to school and after. I know most of the talk was behind my back.
For those who talked. That's what I'm saying. Very few of the real
intellectual community want to put their name up in lights with an
association with a silly bunch of words as I've seen posted. I didn't
say some of them weren't nasty. You were nasty above. You were a
lot more tactful about it than S+F was. That's why I doubt it along
with the things he's spoken that I know are not true.
>>If he is...he's very unique. But his credibility is long ago shot with me
>>and he certainly isn't functioning in the biblical respect of a brother.
>
>Ok. But does that matter, really? Is it ok to bear false witness against a
>non-brother?
>
I'm not bearing any witness. The guy established himself to be a
deceiver in his recent conversation and this is just ANOTHER similar
looking thing. PARRRRDONNNN ME! Sheesh.
>Mattias
Bob Weigel
public forum. You are discussing things related to things
I said IN PUBLIC! Are we going to get past the pride
factor here? It's like you get both sides. People with good
jobs (however the heck they got them) who are so arrogant you
can't reason with them...or people who act like mommy has let
them be on the puter too much and they think they are internet
gods when they've never had any real life experiences... it's
sad. It's...really sad. -Bob
In article <af4ugg$4sl$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
Susan Anderson
: In article <af4ubq$4ru$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
: Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
:>In article <af4q30$c...@garcia.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
:>>In article <af3m9c$mil$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>,
:>>Mattias Hembruch <mghe...@ecexh.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
:>>>In article <af34gk$f...@garcia.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
:>>>>Matthias,
:>>>
:>>>Note: No 'h' in Mattias.
:>>>
:>>>>if you were interested in constructive dialogue, you would
:>>>>post a logical asessment of some specific words someone says.
:>>
:>>You listed it nowhere near what you were talking about. I don't
:>>give a flying rip about spelling names right until you take account
:>>for what you do.
:>
:>Account for what I do? In what sense?
: You posted my entire article and put that "liar" snip on the bottom.
: You could have been referring to anything in that letter. People
: ROUTINELY say things like that about me yet you NEVER say they
: are liars. Hypocrit. And you expect me to dig that out of the
: full text. You are either a full blown idiot or you aren't taking
: account for what you do STILL. Take your pick. I have nothing
: else to say to you until you apologize for insinuating that it
: was some lacking on MY part that I didn't just pick right
: up on what you were trying to prove.
Funny, I understood exactly what Mattias meant in the post in
question. Simple logic actually.
Susan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan
kee...@visi.com
scholar and fool
> : You posted my entire article and put that "liar" snip on the bottom.
> : You could have been referring to anything in that letter. People
> : ROUTINELY say things like that about me yet you NEVER say they
> : are liars. Hypocrit. And you expect me to dig that out of the
>
> Funny, I understood exactly what Mattias meant in the post in
> question. Simple logic actually.
it appears having the full context confused him. rather ironic, that.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. yo joe!
Bob Weigel
Whatever makes me look bad in your own eyes..that ye shall
believe. -Bob
In article <ffd13dc5.02062...@posting.google.com>,
scholar and fool <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote:
Susan Anderson
: Yet we disregard the exterior logic shell posted. Tisk tisk.
: Whatever makes me look bad in your own eyes..that ye shall
: believe. -Bob
Exterior logic shell? I don't think so. You harped about people
not leaving everything in. So, Mattias left in everything up to the
point he had a problem with. He snipped the last several sentences.
In normal usenet fashion, he posted his comment immediately "after" the
sentence he had issue with. How exactly is it that you missed
or didn't understand what he was refering to?
: In article <ffd13dc5.02062...@posting.google.com>,
: scholar and fool <junk...@leifeste.net> wrote:
:>Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
:>> : You posted my entire article and put that "liar" snip on the bottom.
:>> : You could have been referring to anything in that letter. People
:>> : ROUTINELY say things like that about me yet you NEVER say they
:>> : are liars. Hypocrit. And you expect me to dig that out of the
:>> : full text. [...]
:>>
:>> Funny, I understood exactly what Mattias meant in the post in
:>> question. Simple logic actually.
:>
:>it appears having the full context confused him. rather ironic, that.
:>
:>
:>--
:>scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
:>replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me. yo joe!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan
kee...@visi.com