Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jillery and John
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul J Gans
May 8, 2013, 2:42:39 PM5/8/13
to
Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
going to change their mind because of yet another
go-round.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
going to change their mind because of yet another
go-round.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
jillery
May 8, 2013, 3:05:20 PM5/8/13
to
On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>going to change their mind because of yet another
>go-round.
You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>going to change their mind because of yet another
>go-round.
against his POV? I sure didn't.
eridanus
May 8, 2013, 4:07:36 PM5/8/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 8 de mayo de 2013 19:42:39 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
this is due to a property of behavior, the resistance to extinction.
Ideology is an inner behavior. It is reinforced by external political
forces that put siege to the mind of people. Then, like in the case
of Stockholm syndrome, one ends with the being submitted to the ideology
of those that control our brains and thoughts since childhood.
Then, as a rule of thumb, you never change the mind of people. But
political power and continuous harassment can. Think about
Christianity and Islam, how they become dominant religions after
becoming a part of the State.
In the case of Christianity by the action of Roman Emperor Constantin,
and in the case of Islam by the army of Muhammad and the Emirs that
inherited his political power. Where the Islamic armies triumphed the
Islamic religion was established as a solid hegemonic religion.
Eridanus
Ideology is an inner behavior. It is reinforced by external political
forces that put siege to the mind of people. Then, like in the case
of Stockholm syndrome, one ends with the being submitted to the ideology
of those that control our brains and thoughts since childhood.
Then, as a rule of thumb, you never change the mind of people. But
political power and continuous harassment can. Think about
Christianity and Islam, how they become dominant religions after
becoming a part of the State.
In the case of Christianity by the action of Roman Emperor Constantin,
and in the case of Islam by the army of Muhammad and the Emirs that
inherited his political power. Where the Islamic armies triumphed the
Islamic religion was established as a solid hegemonic religion.
Eridanus
Paul J Gans
May 8, 2013, 7:44:15 PM5/8/13
to
thread.
And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
Paul J Gans
May 8, 2013, 7:45:34 PM5/8/13
to
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El mi?rcoles, 8 de mayo de 2013 19:42:39 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
STOP. IT IS COMING OUT OF YOUR EARS. SEE A DOCTOR AT ONCE!
>El mi?rcoles, 8 de mayo de 2013 19:42:39 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
*Hemidactylus*
May 8, 2013, 8:57:19 PM5/8/13
to
On 05/08/2013 02:42 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
> all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
> going to change their mind because of yet another
> go-round.
>
A personality clash on t.o.? Maybe our topology pal should run the
> Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
> all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
> going to change their mind because of yet another
> go-round.
>
numbers and realize that this means he's not the only one who
experiences conflict here. He does water, fertilize, and cultivate it.
But there seems to be many gardening enthusiasts here besides him. He
could give us the maths of a doughnut shaped run of yaupon though.
I prefer orchids.
Gary Bohn
May 8, 2013, 10:47:49 PM5/8/13
to
There have been so many.
Mitchell Coffey
May 8, 2013, 10:59:43 PM5/8/13
to
Mitchell Coffey
Gary Bohn
May 8, 2013, 11:05:12 PM5/8/13
to
czebat...@gmail.com
May 8, 2013, 11:06:26 PM5/8/13
to
I thought he had one - buried in the ground in China.
gregwrld
gregwrld
Mitchell Coffey
May 8, 2013, 11:27:08 PM5/8/13
to
How come every time Peter does anything involving the manipulation of actual numbers with actual math he gets it wrong, if only for conceptual reasons.
Mitchell Coffey
John S. Wilkins
May 8, 2013, 11:31:29 PM5/8/13
to
Johnomics.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Mitchell Coffey
May 8, 2013, 11:45:12 PM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 2:42:39 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
> all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
> going to change their mind because of yet another
> go-round.
They're only pretending a split among the conspirators because they THINK they'll fool Peter. Hah! He's on to them!
>
> Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
> all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
> going to change their mind because of yet another
> go-round.
GFA
Roger Shrubber
May 8, 2013, 11:42:56 PM5/8/13
to
On May 9, 12:31�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Gary Bohn <gary.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>Enough already. �You folks are worse than I am. �We
>
> > > >>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>
> > > >>going to change their mind because of yet another
>
> > > >>go-round.
>
> > > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>
> > > >against his POV? �I sure didn't.
>
> > > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the
>
> > > thread.
>
> > > And of course John is John. �I'd not have it any other way.
>
> > > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>
> > > --
>
> > > � �--- Paul J. Gans
>
> > John who?
> > There have been so many.
>
> The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
> Johnomics.
I prefer the term used by Kenny, just call it plumbing.
>
> > > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>Enough already. �You folks are worse than I am. �We
>
> > > >>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>
> > > >>going to change their mind because of yet another
>
> > > >>go-round.
>
> > > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>
> > > >against his POV? �I sure didn't.
>
> > > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the
>
> > > thread.
>
> > > And of course John is John. �I'd not have it any other way.
>
> > > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>
> > > --
>
> > > � �--- Paul J. Gans
>
> > John who?
> > There have been so many.
>
> The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
> Johnomics.
eridanus
May 9, 2013, 3:53:58 AM5/9/13
to
El jueves, 9 de mayo de 2013 03:59:43 UTC+1, Mitchell Coffey escribi�:
or a "virtual army" at least. All incipient parties or religions start
by creating a "virtual army", "unarmed" with standard weapons in their
first steps. They form small groups or bands, harassing the people of
other "thinking ways", and threatening them with their sheer youth and
capacity to humiliate and to punish anyone that would dare to dissent
with their slogans.
When they had accumulated enough followers they can start a putsch
with an armed or unarmed crowd.
But people that love the arguments based on force or while one is
being jailed somewhat, are the most prone to accept new theories.
Let's us consider, the average experience of most boys in school and
college. They are sent there to learn and to have a career. But the
school curricula is too dense or too voluminous for their own brain
capacity. Well, many of them could feel they had failed, that the
school is too high and steep mountain to climb. So, in a way, they
are bound to hate the school and science that are relatives. Then
any shitty theory like the hollow earth can look attractive. The theory
is simple and do not take much effort of memory to accept it. There are
only a few arguments to be considered. The same for the magnetized water
and other. Then, if a teacher had one day insulted his self-esteem he
had also another reason to hate science. Teachers are like petty priests
of science. Recently I met a lady that was working as technical architect,
"she had a collage degree", and she have had some problems with school
for she abandoned architecture and entered into some "teaching sect" with
weird theories.
I knew a communications engineer that believed in the
theory of the hollow earth. He mentioned the existence of a book as an
argument.
And speaking of books, I harbor the theory that Christianity started
to grow much faster with the existence of books. Some petty priests
(petty compared to other ancient and powerful cults) had started with
a little book explaining the life and miracles of a man, demi-god,
named Jesus. The idea of demigods was not new, but the idea of
teaching people by reading them stories, perhaps was new. It was
the equivalent of the movies at that time. A person that was able
to read and was reading stories to them was the equivalent to a man
that arrived to a village with a machine to project movies on a
white screen.
Then, the attention span of people is limited. The movies with more
than 90 minutes are risking to loose money. Then, the school
activities are like watching a movie of several hours. It is worse than
that, for you have to pass examinations about the elements you had
watched in those movies after a month or more. Then, you are bound to
fail. Your self-esteem would be humiliated and dragged over the floor
of the pigsty.
The woman that told me a little about a new form of school that is better
because science was... she did not dared to tell me what she thought of
the science... but it was not any kind comment. Then, I calmed her a
little by saying "science is a kosher thinking". She was a little puzzled
by the word "kosher" then I asked her, "You know what kosher mean, do you?"
"Is it something Jew?" "Yeah. But I am using this to show you that most
arguments are issued by an authority or other. There is not any way that
you had checked those arguments. You have not ways to check them, not
even the ability or the time to check them. Then, the most probably is
that you follow kosher arguments in a passive way, for they come from
some authority or other." She was a little impressed, but we had not time
to continue with the conversation. Both, she and her husband, were to
leave the church where the music concert was taking place.
Then, only those that harbor grievances with science, or is lower priests
are bound to follow the new preacher of the "Directed Panespermia". It
is a move like heretical, or an act of apostasy, or a resurfacing of some
hidden grudge against school. Then, schools are like the temples or
churches of science uses to educate children. They are doing something
very bad.
Eridanus
by creating a "virtual army", "unarmed" with standard weapons in their
first steps. They form small groups or bands, harassing the people of
other "thinking ways", and threatening them with their sheer youth and
capacity to humiliate and to punish anyone that would dare to dissent
with their slogans.
When they had accumulated enough followers they can start a putsch
with an armed or unarmed crowd.
But people that love the arguments based on force or while one is
being jailed somewhat, are the most prone to accept new theories.
Let's us consider, the average experience of most boys in school and
college. They are sent there to learn and to have a career. But the
school curricula is too dense or too voluminous for their own brain
capacity. Well, many of them could feel they had failed, that the
school is too high and steep mountain to climb. So, in a way, they
are bound to hate the school and science that are relatives. Then
any shitty theory like the hollow earth can look attractive. The theory
is simple and do not take much effort of memory to accept it. There are
only a few arguments to be considered. The same for the magnetized water
and other. Then, if a teacher had one day insulted his self-esteem he
had also another reason to hate science. Teachers are like petty priests
of science. Recently I met a lady that was working as technical architect,
"she had a collage degree", and she have had some problems with school
for she abandoned architecture and entered into some "teaching sect" with
weird theories.
I knew a communications engineer that believed in the
theory of the hollow earth. He mentioned the existence of a book as an
argument.
And speaking of books, I harbor the theory that Christianity started
to grow much faster with the existence of books. Some petty priests
(petty compared to other ancient and powerful cults) had started with
a little book explaining the life and miracles of a man, demi-god,
named Jesus. The idea of demigods was not new, but the idea of
teaching people by reading them stories, perhaps was new. It was
the equivalent of the movies at that time. A person that was able
to read and was reading stories to them was the equivalent to a man
that arrived to a village with a machine to project movies on a
white screen.
Then, the attention span of people is limited. The movies with more
than 90 minutes are risking to loose money. Then, the school
activities are like watching a movie of several hours. It is worse than
that, for you have to pass examinations about the elements you had
watched in those movies after a month or more. Then, you are bound to
fail. Your self-esteem would be humiliated and dragged over the floor
of the pigsty.
The woman that told me a little about a new form of school that is better
because science was... she did not dared to tell me what she thought of
the science... but it was not any kind comment. Then, I calmed her a
little by saying "science is a kosher thinking". She was a little puzzled
by the word "kosher" then I asked her, "You know what kosher mean, do you?"
"Is it something Jew?" "Yeah. But I am using this to show you that most
arguments are issued by an authority or other. There is not any way that
you had checked those arguments. You have not ways to check them, not
even the ability or the time to check them. Then, the most probably is
that you follow kosher arguments in a passive way, for they come from
some authority or other." She was a little impressed, but we had not time
to continue with the conversation. Both, she and her husband, were to
leave the church where the music concert was taking place.
Then, only those that harbor grievances with science, or is lower priests
are bound to follow the new preacher of the "Directed Panespermia". It
is a move like heretical, or an act of apostasy, or a resurfacing of some
hidden grudge against school. Then, schools are like the temples or
churches of science uses to educate children. They are doing something
very bad.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 9, 2013, 3:58:30 AM5/9/13
to
El jueves, 9 de mayo de 2013 04:05:12 UTC+1, Gary Bohn escribi�:
It is public place, like a Roman forum.
Eridanus
Eridanus
Paul J Gans
May 9, 2013, 1:01:13 PM5/9/13
to
couple of days.
Paul J Gans
May 9, 2013, 1:12:56 PM5/9/13
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> >
>> > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
>> >
>> > >>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>> >
>> > >>going to change their mind because of yet another
>> >
>> > >>go-round.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>> >
>> > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the
>> >
>> > thread.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
>> >
>> > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > --- Paul J. Gans
>>
>> John who?
>> There have been so many.
>The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
>Johnomics.
Which groups them according to styles?
>Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> >
>> > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
>> >
>> > >>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>> >
>> > >>going to change their mind because of yet another
>> >
>> > >>go-round.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>> >
>> > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the
>> >
>> > thread.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
>> >
>> > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > --- Paul J. Gans
>>
>> John who?
>> There have been so many.
>The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
>Johnomics.
Gary Bohn
May 9, 2013, 2:29:22 PM5/9/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:31:29 PM UTC-6, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Gary Bohn wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> > > jillery wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > >
>
>
> > >
>
> > > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > >
>
> > > >wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
>
> > >
>
> > > >>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>
> > >
>
> > > >>going to change their mind because of yet another
>
> > >
>
> > > >>go-round.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>
> > >
>
> > > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the
>
> > >
>
> > > thread.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
>
> > >
>
> > > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --
>
> > >
>
> > > --- Paul J. Gans
>
> >
>
> > John who?
>
> > There have been so many.
>
>
>
> The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
>
> Johnomics.
>
> --
>
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
>
> http://evolvingthoughts.net
>
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
>
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
I have yet to get past Canesian economics.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We
>
> > >
>
> > > >>all get it, opinions are firmly held, and nobody is
>
> > >
>
> > > >>going to change their mind because of yet another
>
> > >
>
> > > >>go-round.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>
> > >
>
> > > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the
>
> > >
>
> > > thread.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
>
> > >
>
> > > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > --
>
> > >
>
> > > --- Paul J. Gans
>
> >
>
> > John who?
>
> > There have been so many.
>
>
>
> The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
>
> Johnomics.
>
> --
>
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
>
> http://evolvingthoughts.net
>
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
>
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
May 10, 2013, 2:26:16 AM5/10/13
to
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >> >
> >> > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We all get it,
> >> > >>opinions are firmly held, and nobody is going to change their mind
> >> > >>because of yet another go-round.
> >> >
> >> > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
> >> > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the thread.
> >> >
> >> > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
> >> >
> >> > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
> >>
> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >> >
> >> > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We all get it,
> >> > >>opinions are firmly held, and nobody is going to change their mind
> >> > >>because of yet another go-round.
> >> >
> >> > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
> >> > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the thread.
> >> >
> >> > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
> >> >
> >> > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
> >>
> >> John who?
> >> There have been so many.
>
> >The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
> >Johnomics.
>
> Which groups them according to styles?
Several keys are used. One is location, another is amount of hair, and a
> >> There have been so many.
>
> >The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
> >Johnomics.
>
> Which groups them according to styles?
third is the luxuriousness of the beard.
Paul J Gans
May 10, 2013, 11:20:51 AM5/10/13
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> >Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> >> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> >> >
>> >> > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We all get it,
>> >> > >>opinions are firmly held, and nobody is going to change their mind
>> >> > >>because of yet another go-round.
>> >> >
>> >> > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>> >> > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>> >>
>> >> John who?
>> >> There have been so many.
>>
>> >The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
>> >Johnomics.
>>
>> Which groups them according to styles?
>Several keys are used. One is location, another is amount of hair, and a
>third is the luxuriousness of the beard.
Isn't that studied by Johnologists?
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> >Gary Bohn <gary...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:44:15 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> >> > jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >On Wed, 8 May 2013 18:42:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> >> >
>> >> > ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >>Enough already. You folks are worse than I am. We all get it,
>> >> > >>opinions are firmly held, and nobody is going to change their mind
>> >> > >>because of yet another go-round.
>> >> >
>> >> > >You didn't really expect Harshman to even acknowledge the evidence
>> >> > >against his POV? I sure didn't.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed, but at this point even I have stopped reading the thread.
>> >> >
>> >> > And of course John is John. I'd not have it any other way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just as Jillery is Jillery with your own distinctive flavor.
>> >>
>> >> John who?
>> >> There have been so many.
>>
>> >The answer to that question can be resolved using the science of
>> >Johnomics.
>>
>> Which groups them according to styles?
>Several keys are used. One is location, another is amount of hair, and a
>third is the luxuriousness of the beard.
Walter Bushell
May 11, 2013, 6:07:19 PM5/11/13
to
In article <3c83cf3a-85f7-4d2e...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
But, of course, even after the Roman Empire took over Christianity,
the religious life previous to that continued under cover, like it
does in South America. See all the people and priest got assimilated
into the the Church and kept there habitual mentational methods.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
the religious life previous to that continued under cover, like it
does in South America. See all the people and priest got assimilated
into the the Church and kept there habitual mentational methods.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
eridanus
May 12, 2013, 10:16:34 AM5/12/13
to
El s�bado, 11 de mayo de 2013 23:07:19 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
previous religions do not disappear in just a few years. They would last
about a couple of generations of a minority that resist the changes.
Eridanus
> In article <3c83cf3a-85f7-4d2e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > El mi�rcoles, 8 de mayo de 2013 19:42:39 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
>
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
about a couple of generations of a minority that resist the changes.
Eridanus
Walter Bushell
May 12, 2013, 2:36:06 PM5/12/13
to
In article <d9072ae2-14df-40a2...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but the old gods live on in the new religion. Formally the new
religion is running the show, but.
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
religion is running the show, but.
eridanus
May 14, 2013, 5:38:05 PM5/14/13
to
the worshiping of so many saints and virgins, that make the same role
as the ancient gods.
In the case of protestant evangelicals, I not very sure. But they had
enthroned in life some superstar preachers and televangelists.
Eridanus
eridanus
May 18, 2013, 6:54:52 AM5/18/13
to
El martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 22:38:05 UTC+1, eridanus escribi�:
> El domingo, 12 de mayo de 2013 19:36:06 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
I was thinking farther on the part of protestant catholics. The theory
of the trinity it seems to me a case of polytheism. You got the father,
the son and the holy spirit. Then, there are three gods even if they
negate they are three. The only monotheism are in Jews and Islamics. Even
if Mohammad looks a little like a secondary god for the extreme worshiping
of his figure. It looks nearly a second class god.
Eridanus
> El domingo, 12 de mayo de 2013 19:36:06 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
>
> > In article <d9072ae2-14df-40a2...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > El s�bado, 11 de mayo de 2013 23:07:19 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
> > In article <d9072ae2-14df-40a2...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> > > > In article <3c83cf3a-85f7-4d2e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > El mi�rcoles, 8 de mayo de 2013 19:42:39 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
> >
>
> > > > In article <3c83cf3a-85f7-4d2e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
of the trinity it seems to me a case of polytheism. You got the father,
the son and the holy spirit. Then, there are three gods even if they
negate they are three. The only monotheism are in Jews and Islamics. Even
if Mohammad looks a little like a secondary god for the extreme worshiping
of his figure. It looks nearly a second class god.
Eridanus
Earle Jones
May 18, 2013, 8:41:47 PM5/18/13
to
In article <43781638-f9ce-4794...@googlegroups.com>,
*
"The three in one, the one in three?
Not so! In my own Gods I go.
It may be they shall give me greater ease,
Than your cold Christ and tangled Trinities."
--Rudyard Kipling
earl*
"The three in one, the one in three?
Not so! In my own Gods I go.
It may be they shall give me greater ease,
Than your cold Christ and tangled Trinities."
--Rudyard Kipling
earl*
0 new messages