Re: WHO IS JESUS? ??????????

[Colanth]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:52:56 -0800 (PST), Merlin
<merli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 30, 12:34 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> >the evidence comes from within each of us.
>>
>> >> That's opinion.
>>
>> >experiences are not opinion tho they are personal to each person
>>
>> Which means that they're opinion.
>
>experiences are opinions?

Oh, you thought something only you can know is objective?

>very interesting. what is reality then when experience is an opinion?

The reality is real, the experience is objective. Don't they have
"Language as a Second Language" courses where you live? Your native
tongue is obviously NOT language.

>you might want to define reality then when you make it a personal
>opinion.

You might want to try understanding what you read. I know it would be
a novel experience for you, but it's almost a new year, so what the
heck?
--
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth
many regrets." - Arthur Charles Clarke

[Merlin]

On Dec 30, 6:56 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:52:56 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>

> <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 30, 12:34 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> >the evidence comes from within each of us.
>
> >> >> That's opinion.
>
> >> >experiences are not opinion tho they are personal to each person
>
> >> Which means that they're opinion.
>
> >experiences are opinions?
>
> Oh, you thought something only you can know is objective?

can't answer a simple question?

define what your reality is then............ so we can understand
what you are talking about.

> >very interesting. what is reality then when experience is an opinion?

> The reality is real, the experience is objective.

this does not say anything.

> Don't they have
> "Language as a Second Language" courses where you live?  Your native
> tongue is obviously NOT language.

insults and put downs may be part of your reality, tho the are not
real.

>
> >you might want to define reality then when you make it a personal
> >opinion.
>
> You might want to try understanding what you read.  I know it would be
> a novel experience for you, but it's almost a new year, so what the
> heck?

reality is defined by you as experience?

a personal experience with god is real then..........

that helps us all see from whenst thou cometh.

in love,

merlin

[Colanth]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:41:52 -0800 (PST), Merlin
<merli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 30, 6:56 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:52:56 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>>
>> <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 30, 12:34 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >the evidence comes from within each of us.
>>
>> >> >> That's opinion.
>>
>> >> >experiences are not opinion tho they are personal to each person
>>
>> >> Which means that they're opinion.
>>
>> >experiences are opinions?
>>
>> Oh, you thought something only you can know is objective?
>
>can't answer a simple question?
>
>define what your reality is then............ so we can understand
>what you are talking about.

If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
in terms that you'll understand.

>> >very interesting. what is reality then when experience is an opinion?

>> The reality is real, the experience is objective.

>this does not say anything.

It does to sane people.

>> Don't they have
>> "Language as a Second Language" courses where you live?  Your native
>> tongue is obviously NOT language.

>insults and put downs may be part of your reality, tho the are not
>real.

No, they're an indication that I consider you to be mentally
defective.

>> >you might want to define reality then when you make it a personal
>> >opinion.

>> You might want to try understanding what you read.  I know it would be
>> a novel experience for you, but it's almost a new year, so what the
>> heck?

>reality is defined by you as experience?

No, by you. You don't seem to be able to understand your posts.

>a personal experience with god is real then..........

It's a real experience, which makes it subjective.

>that helps us all see from whenst thou cometh.

I cometh from reality, you cometh from the land of imaginary friends
(rubber rooms, electroshock therapy, etc.) In a sane world (one
without religion), you'd be involuntarily confined. Your kind will be
in a few hundred years.
--
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -
George Bernard Shaw

[Merlin]

On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:



> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
> in terms that you'll understand.

since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
claim god is not real.

that is the real question being asked, what is your basis for
declaring the non existence of god,
when you can't explain reality in the first place.

> >> >very interesting. what is reality then when experience is an opinion?
> >> The reality is real, the experience is objective.
> >this does not say anything.
>
> It does to sane people.

we are not talking about your psychological home divining judgements
about people.

it makes sense when you call personal opinion reality, when insults
are your main thrust here on christnet.

>
> >> Don't they have
> >> "Language as a Second Language" courses where you live?  Your native
> >> tongue is obviously NOT language.
> >insults and put downs may be part of your reality, tho the are not
> >real.
>
> No, they're an indication that I consider you to be mentally
> defective.

as you seem unable to define reality how do insults help?

this is an important question, for you have claimed that god is not
real,
and yet you can not seem to define reality.

> >reality is defined by you as experience?
>
> No, by you.  You don't seem to be able to understand your posts.

then spell it out for us, that is what is being asked.

your reasoning is what is being asked to be explained........

and your insults suggests you are failing at it.

> >a personal experience with god is real then..........
>
> It's a real experience, which makes it subjective.

you can label experiences however you wish.

the human senses are subjective are they not?

how does an experience become objective without the senses?

> >that helps us all see from whenst thou cometh.

> I cometh from reality,

you have not explained what reality is so you could be coming from
mars.

> you cometh from the land of imaginary friends

so you say, yet your claimes to understand what reality are just are
not adding up.

> (rubber rooms, electroshock therapy, etc.)

all you are being asked to do, is set up and experiement to prove to
yourself whether god exists or not,
and you refuse to do create this experiment and rather then love
unconditionally as suggested
you prefer to sound and act out in a very unhappy and unloving way.

by acting unlovingly you are suggesting that you are not interesting
in any experience with god,
and that denial is what you are confusing as lack of proof that god
exists?

unconditional love sets up a chemical change in the body that may
allow for a personal experience with god.

>  In a sane world (one
> without religion),

you sound angry and upset and seem to be blaming others for you
temper.

which is like everyone on here that is claiming there is no god.

unconditional love will set up a chain of events in our lives that can
make the conditions for a direct personal relationship with god. so
few choose and so many have been asked to try.

> you'd be involuntarily confined.  Your kind will be
> in a few hundred years.

so says the person that can't define reality.

in love,

merlin

[Dutch]

"Merlin" <merli...@gmail.com> wrote

> since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> claim god is not real.

God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable, like physical elements
like sulphur. So as a indemonstrable concept, it fits in a category with
fairies on Mars.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
>> in terms that you'll understand.
>
> since you can't explain what reality is.....

Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for you is
obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.

[Merlin]

On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote

>
> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> > claim god is not real.
>
> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,

you have refused to love unconditionally to see what happens.......
that you refuse to even try to find god for yourself while declaring
that god does not exist
has everything to you do with you and nothing to do with the reality
of god.

> like physical elements
> like sulphur.

what does this have to do with loving unconditionally.

> So as a indemonstrable concept, it fits in a category with
> fairies on Mars.

you have not ins addressed your insult to women in your previous
post.... please explain ........

in love,

merlin

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 3:22 PM, Merlin wrote:
> On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Merlin"<merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>>> claim god is not real.
>>
>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>

> you have refused to love unconditionally to [blah blah blah]

...just more pointless time-wasting...

[Colanth]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:03:48 -0800 (PST), Merlin
<merli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
>> in terms that you'll understand.
>
>since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>claim god is not real.

I can explain what it is. You can't understand the explanation.

You also can't understand what you read.
--
"Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity,
intelligence, or common sense. " - Spaf

[Colanth]

Not the real ones, though.
--
“For seventeen hundred years the Christian sect has done nothing but
harm” - Voltaire

[Colanth]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
<merli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>> > claim god is not real.
>>
>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
>you have refused to love

Love isn't objectively real.
--
"Society without organized religion is like a crazed psychopath
without a loaded .45."

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 6:57 PM, Colanth wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
> <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> "Merlin"<merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>>>> claim god is not real.
>>>
>>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>>
>> you have refused to love
>
> Love isn't objectively real.

You're a time-wasting bullshit artist, too. You and not-merlin deserve
one another.

[Mark]

You've been taking the bait for weeks, little fish. And you'll keep
taking it because you're a more pathetic time waster than merlin is. So
long as merlin keeps loading the hook for you you'll gobble it up every
time like a good little fish and wait around for more, no matter what
the bait is and no matter how many times the same bait is used to lure
you. You can't stop yourself. You're stupid and have no self control.

[Mark]

No, it's you and Merlin who deserve each other. Merlin loads the hook
with whatever bullshit Merlin can think up to make you look stupid, and
you're there to take it whenever you find it after searching for it. And
don't try to blame this abusive relationship on Merlin. You're the
guilty one because you're greedy for Merlin's bullshit. Most people
avoid those they consider time wasters, but not you. You quickly settle
into an abusive relationship with them and keep the horrible thing alive
for as long as you can.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>
>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>
>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for you is
>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>
> You've been taking the bait for weeks,

Haven't taken it once.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 9:42 PM, Mark wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 03:07, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 6:57 PM, Colanth wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>>> <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Merlin"<merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>>>>>> claim god is not real.
>>>>>
>>>>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>>>>
>>>> you have refused to love
>>>
>>> Love isn't objectively real.
>>
>> You're a time-wasting bullshit artist, too. You and not-merlin deserve
>> one another.
>
> No, it's you and Merlin who deserve each other. Merlin loads the hook
> with whatever bullshit Merlin can think up to make you look stupid, and
> you're there to take it

[Dutch]

"Merlin" <merli...@gmail.com> wrot in message
news:c042509e-0874-4233...@m4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>> > claim god is not real.
>>
>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
> you have refused to love unconditionally to see what happens.......

How do you know that? Me loving you unconditionally does not necessarily
mean that I agree with what you say. I'm not talking about love or hate of
anyone, I am talking about your statements. Who says the most loving thing
for me to do for you isn't to keep calling you on your bullshit? In fact
that is what I think. By agreeing with you I would just be enabling your
delusions, and delusions do not lead to an understanding of God.

What you really want is for people to agree with you and praise you for your
wisdom. It's ego feeding, also not compatible with finding God.

[Mark]

Yes you have, little fish. You take it *EVERY TIME* and wait around for
more of exactly the same. You've been doing it for more than a month and
you'll keep doing it because you're a stupid time waster. You just can't
stop. You don't know how.

[Mark]

Every time, little fish, *EVERY TIME* for more than a month. You can't
stop yourself. You'll take whatever bullshit merlin baits you with and
wait around for more.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 10:08 PM, Mark wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 9:42 PM, Mark wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2012 03:07, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2011 6:57 PM, Colanth wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>>>>> <merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Merlin"<merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>>>>>>>> claim god is not real.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you have refused to love
>>>>>
>>>>> Love isn't objectively real.
>>>>
>>>> You're a time-wasting bullshit artist, too. You and not-merlin deserve
>>>> one another.
>>>
>>> No, it's you and Merlin who deserve each other. Merlin loads the hook
>>> with whatever bullshit Merlin can think up to make you look stupid, and
>>> you're there to take it
>>
>> Haven't taken it once.
>
> Yes you have,

Not once, little mullet - not once.

[George Plimpton]

On 12/31/2011 10:15 PM, Mark wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>
>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>> you is
>>>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>>>
>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>
>> Haven't taken it once.
>
> Every time,

Not once, little mullet. Taking the bait would be entering into the
bullshit fake discussion of religion on his terms. I have never
discussed religion with him - not once, little mullet. I have

[Mark]

On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 12/31/2011 10:15 PM, Mark wrote:
>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
>>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>>> you is
>>>>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>>>>
>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>
>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>
>> Every time,
>
> Not once, little mullet.

Every time, little fish. You can't stop.

> Taking the bait would be

getting yourself hooked and reeled in like a sucker, like what happens
every time Merlin casts his line, little fish. Getting hooked time after
time every day for over a month and then whining about it proves the
angler's skill and the fish's stupidity, not the converse.

[George Plimpton]

On 1/1/2012 11:52 AM, Mark wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 10:15 PM, Mark wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything
>>>>>>>> to you
>>>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>>>> you is
>>>>>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>>
>>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>>
>>> Every time,
>>
>> Not once, little mullet.
>
> Every time,

Not once, little markie mullet - not once.

>> Taking the bait would be entering into the bullshit fake discussion of religion on his terms. I have never discussed religion with him - not once, little mullet.
>

> getting yourself hooked and reeled in

Never happened, little markie mullet - not once. I never discussed
religion with him, little markie mullet. I always pointed out that he
was attempting to play a game that I wouldn't play.

Same with you, little markie mullet - exactly the same with you. You
couldn't hook your own own asshole with an icehook, little markie mullet.

[Mark]

You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
away without notation, little fish. I've encountered a lot of bad losers
in my time but you're not the worst.

On 01/01/2012 20:21, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 1/1/2012 11:52 AM, Mark wrote:
>> On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2011 10:15 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything
>>>>>>>>> to you
>>>>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>>>>> you is
>>>>>>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>>>
>>>> Every time,
>

>>> Taking the bait would be
>>

>> getting yourself hooked and reeled in like a sucker, like what happens
>> every time Merlin casts his line, little fish. Getting hooked time after
>> time every day for over a month and then whining about it proves the
>> angler's skill and the fish's stupidity, not the converse.
>

> Never happened

It will keep happening so long as Merlin keeps baiting that hook like
he's been baiting it for over a month with the bullshit you can't refuse
to ignore. Merlin obviously has a problem, but you have a bigger one
because you can't stop responding to this obvious time waster. Your
dishonest editing, deleting newsgroups from this thread and your attempt
to make the followup to a different newsgroup shows your dishonesty. On
top of everything else about you you're a bad loser who tries to spoil
the game he loses.

[Pu...@pooks.hill.fey]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:57:18 -0500, Colanth <col...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
><merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>>> > claim god is not real.
>>>
>>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>>
>>you have refused to love
>
>Love isn't objectively real.

And if I might just cut in : Love is not a voluntary/controllable condition, it happens or
it doesn't

***

The spelling, like any opinion stated here,

is purely my own

Puck Greenman #162

BAAWA Knight.

[Loirbaj]

Calvin Ramsey would not even help out his
supposed favorite website 'of the Elect'.
How does the demonic 'logic' of Ramsey operate?
If he sees a man --a GOOD man, an 'Elect' man--
who has fallen into a pond and is drowning. The
way I now understand Ramsey: he CELEBRATES
that the man is suffering and dying. Because he
actually 'reasons': this is an Elect and he is going
to Heaven now, and anyway 'his fate was forechosen
before the foundation of the world and so it would do
NO use for me to try and help people, anyway'. As
bizarre and demonic as that is, it also is certainly
something which Jesus NEVER taught.

When I heard that Hitchens was dead,
I took a deep breath. The air felt cleaner
--Finkelstein

[George Plimpton]

On 1/1/2012 1:18 PM, Mark wrote:
> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
> away without notation,

That's a shame, little markie mullet - a real shame.

Go have a nice long cry, little markie mullet.

> On 01/01/2012 20:21, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 1/1/2012 11:52 AM, Mark wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2011 10:15 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything
>>>>>>>>>> to you
>>>>>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>>>>>> you is
>>>>>>>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time,
>>

>>>> Taking the bait would be entering into the bullshit fake discussion of religion on his terms. I have never discussed religion with him - not once, little mullet.
>>>
>>> getting yourself hooked and
>>

>> Never happened, little markie mullet - not once. I never discussed religion with him, little markie mullet. I always pointed out that he was attempting to play a game that I wouldn't play.
>

> It will keep happening

Never happened, little markie mullet - not even a single time.

Sorry, little markie mullet. You got it allllllllll wrong, little
markie mullet. Go have yourself a good cry.

[Mark]

On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 1/1/2012 1:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>> away without notation,
>
> That's a shame

The shame is all yours. It belongs to you.

> little markie mullet - a real shame.
>
> Go have a nice long cry, little markie mullet.

You're a right nasty little piece of work, aren't you?

>> On 01/01/2012 20:21, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2012 11:52 AM, Mark wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2011 10:15 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 9:21 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything
>>>>>>>>>>> to you
>>>>>>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>>>>>>> you is
>>>>>>>>> obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the bait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every time,
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking the bait would be
>> >>

>> >> getting yourself hooked and reeled in like a sucker, like what happens
>> >> every time Merlin casts his line, little fish. Getting hooked time after
>> >> time every day for over a month and then whining about it proves the
>> >> angler's skill and the fish's stupidity, not the converse.
>> >
>> > Never happened
>>
>> It will keep happening so long as Merlin keeps baiting that hook like
>> he's been baiting it for over a month with the bullshit you can't
refuse
>> to ignore. Merlin obviously has a problem, but you have a bigger one
>> because you can't stop responding to this obvious time waster. Your
>> dishonest editing, deleting newsgroups from this thread and your
attempt
>> to make the followup to a different newsgroup shows your dishonesty. On
>> top of everything else about you you're a bad loser who tries to spoil
>> the game he loses.
>

> Never happened

You know it did. It's only a matter of time before you begin whining all
over again about how Merlin is a time waster and how you refuse to
participate in his time wasting.

[George Plimpton]

right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

> On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 1/1/2012 1:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
>>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>>> away without notation,
>>
>> That's a shame
>
> The shame is

The shame, of course, is all yours, little markie mullet. Keep crying.

> > little markie mullet - a real shame.
> >
> > Go have a nice long cry, little markie mullet.
>
> You're a right nasty little piece of work,

Gotcha.

Never happened, little markie mullet.

Keep crying, kid.

[Colanth]

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:28:03 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:57:18 -0500, Colanth <col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>><merli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>>>> > claim god is not real.
>>>>
>>>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>>>
>>>you have refused to love
>>
>>Love isn't objectively real.
>
>
>And if I might just cut in : Love is not a voluntary/controllable condition, it happens or
>it doesn't

Except in Christianity, where atheists choose to not love the
Christians' fantasy.
--
"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity." - R.Brown

[Merlin]

On Dec 31 2011, 7:53 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:03:48 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>

> <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
> >> in terms that you'll understand.
>
> >since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >claim god is not real.
>
> I can explain what it is.  You can't understand the explanation.
>
> You also can't understand what you read.

insults and snide comments do not define reality, your reality
perhaps, not a reality that interprets for the rest of us.

then as an academic you have failed.............

in love,

merlin

[Merlin]

On Dec 31 2011, 9:57 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>

> <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >> > claim god is not real.
>
> >> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
> >you have refused to love
>
> Love isn't objectively real.
> --
> "Society without organized religion is like a crazed psychopath
> without a loaded .45."

when is the difference between subjective and objective reality when
you rely on your senses to know both.......

your description of reality requires a human form with
senses..........

so that only a perfectly formed human can be part of your reality.

that is neither subjective nor objective by design.

in love,

merlin

[Merlin]

On Jan 1, 1:06 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

dutch you still have not taken back your insult to all women.......

> >> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >> > claim god is not real.
>
> >> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
> > you have refused to love unconditionally to see what happens.......
>
> How do you know that?

because you said you would not do as anyone suggested..... and you
would have reported back by now on what was happening to you because
of your trying the experiment to love unconditionally in your life and
see what happens. Ghandi is a good example of someone that loved
unconditionally.

> What you really want is for people to agree with you and praise you for your
> wisdom.

all that is being asked of you as you claim there is no god, is that
you and other try this experiment.
yet you refuse and still claim there is no god cause someone else
can't prove to you there is a god.

how many people do you trust with your car or house keys?
how many people have keys to your house?

and you want total strangers to prove something to you?

> It's ego feeding, also not compatible with finding God.

the only 'ego' anyone knows is there own.

this is why jesus says to love everyone as we love ourselves.

in love with the living loving gay jesus,

merlin

[Merlin]

On Jan 1, 1:06 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

dutch you still have not taken back your insult to all women.......

> >> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >> > claim god is not real.
>
> >> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
> > you have refused to love unconditionally to see what happens.......
>
> How do you know that?

because you said you would not do as anyone suggested..... and you
would have reported back by now on what was happening to you because
of your trying the experiment to love unconditionally in your life and
see what happens. Ghandi is a good example of someone that loved
unconditionally.

> What you really want is for people to agree with you and praise you for your
> wisdom.

all that is being asked of you as you claim there is no god, is that
you and other try this experiment.
yet you refuse and still claim there is no god cause someone else
can't prove to you there is a god.

how many people do you trust with your car or house keys?
how many people have keys to your house?

and you want total strangers to prove something to you?

> It's ego feeding, also not compatible with finding God.

[Merlin]

On Dec 31 2011, 7:53 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:03:48 -0800 (PST), Merlin

>
> <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain anything to you
> >> in terms that you'll understand.
>

> >since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >claim god is not real.
>

[Merlin]

On Dec 31 2011, 9:57 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
>

> <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >> > claim god is not real.
>
> >> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
> >you have refused to love
>
> Love isn't objectively real.
> --
> "Society without organized religion is like a crazed psychopath
> without a loaded .45."

[Merlin]

On Jan 1, 4:28 pm, P...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:

> And if I might just cut in : Love is not a voluntary/controllable condition, it happens or
> it doesn't

that is why there is no guarantees that god will appear when we
love.....
it can take a life time or life times....

in love,

merlin

[Merlin]

On Jan 1, 6:42 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:28:03 +0000, P...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:

> >On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:57:18 -0500, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
> >><merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Dec 31, 5:20 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Merlin" <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
> >>>> > claim god is not real.
>
> >>>> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>
> >>>you have refused to love
>
> >>Love isn't objectively real.
>
> >And if I might just cut in : Love is not a voluntary/controllable condition, it happens or
> >it doesn't
>
> Except in Christianity, where atheists choose to not love the
> Christians' fantasy.

there are always exceptions. most people look for the most extreme
exceptions to quote while posting here.

and yes everyone that is posting here has refused to love
unconditionally to see what happens to them.......

so they don't want to find god, they only want to declare there is no
god.

in love,

merlin

[Mark]

On 01/01/2012 23:01, George Plimpton wrote:

>
> Mark wrote:
>> On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2012 1:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>>>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
>>>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>>>> away without notation,
>>>
>>> That's a shame
>>
>> The shame is
>

> The shame, of course, is all mine.

That's what happens when you get caught, little fish. You obviously feel
shamed to some large extent and embarrassed by it, and that's why you
had to remove all the newsgroups this thread was being posted to and
make the followup to alt.bullshit so that my responses to you wouldn't
appear in them.

So you keep saying, little fish, but we know it did happen. We know
it'll continue to happen for as long as Merlin chooses. You're stupid
and defenceless against the likes of Merlin who, let's be honest, isn't
very bright. But he's certainly more than a match for you. He's had you
right where he wants you for over a month all over the Christmas period
and you haven't been able to do a damn thing about it apart from
complain about being too stupid not to get caught on his hook he baiting
with nothing but time wasting bullshit. But do play on. Don't let me
stop Merlin's enjoyment at your expense. You deserve to be played, and
Merlin deserves respect at managing to keep you in play for so long.
He's done a magnificent job playing you, little fish.

[George Plimpton]

right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

> On 01/01/2012 23:01, George Plimpton wrote:
>>

>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

>>> On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:
> >>>>

>>>>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>>>>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
>>>>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>>>>> away without notation,
>>>>
>>>> That's a shame
>>>
>>> The shame is
>>

>> The shame, of course, is all yours, little markie mullet. Keep crying.
>

> That's what happens an impotent, squat-to-piss little mullet like me can't stop crying.

Very true, little markie mullet. Keep crying.

>>>>> On 01/01/2012 20:21, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

>>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>>>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

>>>>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for you is obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes thebait.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time,
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Taking the bait would be the bait would be entering into the bullshit fake discussion of religion on his terms. I have never discussed religion with him - not once, little mullet.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> getting yourself hooked and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never happened, little markie mullet - not once. I never discussed religion with him, little markie mullet. I always pointed out that he was attempting to play a game that I wouldn't play.
>>>>>

>>>>> It will keep happening so long as
>>>>

>>>> Never happened, little markie mullet - not even a single time.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, little markie mullet. You got it allllllllll wrong, little markie mullet. Go have yourself a good cry.
>>>

>>> You know it did.
>>

>> Never happened, little markie mullet.
>>
>> Keep crying, kid.
>

> So you keep saying,

Gotcha. I almost have you in the boat, little markie mullet. You're
tiring. Tiring, and crying. Too funny!

[Lesley]

"Mark" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jdsd0i$5f9$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 01/01/2012 23:01, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>> Mark wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 1/1/2012 1:18 PM, Mark wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>>>>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
>>>>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>>>>> away without notation,
>>>>
>>>> That's a shame
>>>
>>> The shame is
>>
>> The shame, of course, is all mine.
>
> That's what happens when you get caught, little fish. You obviously feel
> shamed to some large extent and embarrassed by it, and that's why you had
> to remove all the newsgroups this thread was being posted to and make the
> followup to alt.bullshit so that my responses to you wouldn't appear in
> them.

That's how I see it. He lost and did a runner.

The sniveling little runaway Georgie Porgie obviously isn't interested in
playing with the big boys.

Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry,
When the boys came out to play
Georgie Porgie ran away.

[George Plimpton]

On 1/2/2012 12:49 PM, Lesley wrote:
>
> [stupid bullshit snipped]

Could this be Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon?

[Dutch]

"Merlin" <merli...@gmail.com> wrote

> On Jan 1, 1:06 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> dutch you still have not taken back your insult to all women.......

Piss up a rope you insipid little prick.

>> >> > since you can't explain what reality is..... how can you make the
>> >> > claim god is not real.
>>
>> >> God is a real concept, but it is not demonstrable,
>>
>> > you have refused to love unconditionally to see what happens.......
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
> because you said you would not do as anyone suggested.....

I said nothing of the kind, stop lying, little prick.

and you
> would have reported back by now on what was happening to you because
> of your trying the experiment to love unconditionally in your life and
> see what happens. Ghandi is a good example of someone that loved
> unconditionally.

You know nothing about Ghandi or unconditional love.

>
>> What you really want is for people to agree with you and praise you for
>> your
>> wisdom.
>
> all that is being asked of you as you claim there is no god, is that
> you and other try this experiment.
> yet you refuse and still claim there is no god cause someone else
> can't prove to you there is a god.

How do you know I don't love unconditionally already?

> how many people do you trust with your car or house keys?
> how many people have keys to your house?
>
> and you want total strangers to prove something to you?

Since you are making the claim it's your job to back it up.

>> It's ego feeding, also not compatible with finding God.
>
> the only 'ego' anyone knows is there own.

That would be "his own", you had a grammatical AND a spelling error in the
same word. Nice job, is English your first language?

>
> this is why jesus says to love everyone as we love ourselves.

Tripe, worthless shallow insipid tripe.

[Dutch]

"Merlin" <merli...@gmail.com> wrote

> when is the difference between subjective and objective reality when
> you rely on your senses to know both.......

false

[Colanth]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 04:51:42 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 31 2011, 9:57�pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin

>> >you have refused to love

>> Love isn't objectively real.

>when is the difference between subjective and objective reality when
>you rely on your senses to know both.......

If you don't understand the difference between knowledge and reality,
you aren't intelligent enough for an adult to hold a conversation with
you. Five year olds know the difference.
--
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I
have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow
than in the church" - Ferdinand Magellan

[Mark]

On 02/01/2012 20:49, Lesley wrote:
>
>
> "Mark"<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:jdsd0i$5f9$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 01/01/2012 23:01, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 1/1/2012 1:18 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>>>>>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my response to
>>>>>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>>>>>> away without notation,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a shame
>>>>
>>>> The shame is
>>>
>>> The shame, of course, is all mine.
>>
>> That's what happens when you get caught, little fish. You obviously feel
>> shamed to some large extent and embarrassed by it, and that's why you had
>> to remove all the newsgroups this thread was being posted to and make the
>> followup to alt.bullshit so that my responses to you wouldn't appear in
>> them.
>
> That's how I see it. He lost and did a runner.

Lesley, so nice to see you're still around. Do you *EVER* have an off
day? :-) Happy new year to you and your new family.

[George Plimpton]

right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

> On 02/01/2012 20:49, Lesley wrote:
>>
>>

>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

>>> On 01/01/2012 23:01, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>

>>>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:

>>>>> On 01/01/2012 21:40, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>> right on cue, little markie mullet whined:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You've dishonestly removed all the newsgroups this thread was being
>>>>>>> posted to and made the followup to alt.bullshit so that my
>>>>>>> response to
>>>>>>> you wouldn't appear here. And you've dishonestly snipped my comments
>>>>>>> away without notation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a shame
>>>>>
>>>>> The shame is
>>>>

>>>> The shame, of course, is all yours, little markie mullet. Keep crying.
>>>

>>> That's what happens when an impotent, squat-to-piss little mullet like me can't stop crying.

>>
>> That's how I see it.

That's how everyone sees it.


>
> When markie mullet dropped that pass, Big George Plimpton kicked his ass.

Exactly.

>>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 20:21, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>>>> little markie mullet whined:

>>>>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 18:36, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> little markie mullet whined:

>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/01/2012 05:49, George Plimpton wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> little markie mullet whined:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/12/2011 23:06, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2011 2:03 PM, Merlin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, Colanth<cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't know what reality is, no one can explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to you in terms that you'll understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since you can't explain what reality is.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since your fake time-wasting demand to have reality "defined" for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you is obviously nothing but time-wasting bullshit, no one takes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've been taking the bait for weeks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Haven't taken it once.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every time,
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Taking the bait would be the bait would be entering into the bullshit fake discussion of religion on his terms. I have never discussed religion with him - not once, little mullet.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> getting yourself hooked and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never happened, little markie mullet - not once. I never discussed religion with him, little markie mullet. I always pointed out that he was attempting to play a game that I wouldn't play.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It will keep happening so long as
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Never happened, little markie mullet - not even a single time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, little markie mullet. You got it allllllllll wrong, little markie mullet. Go have yourself a good cry.
>>>>>

>>>>> You know it did.
>>>>

>>>> Never happened, little markie mullet.
>>>>
>>>> Keep crying, kid.
>>>

>>> So you keep saying,

Gotcha, little markie mullet. I almost have you in the boat, little

[Merlin]

On Jan 2, 4:38 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 04:51:42 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31 2011, 9:57 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), Merlin
> >> >you have refused to love
> >> Love isn't objectively real.
> >when is the difference between subjective and objective reality when
> >you rely on your senses to know both.......
>
> If you don't understand the difference between knowledge and reality,

you cannot explain reality outside of your senses.
the world does not end when you no longer have a human body.

so the real world is unseen world that created the seen world.

> you aren't intelligent enough

really? you are claiming to be smarter? really? LOL.

> for an adult to hold a conversation with
> you.  Five year olds know the difference.

the question is how to find god.....

and the answer is love, and your refusal to love unconditionally
witnessed by your insults....

suggests that you do not wish to find god.

> --
> "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I
> have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow
> than in the church" - Ferdinand Magellan

and what did you believe a 1000 years ago?

in love,

merlin

[Lesley]

"Mark" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:jdt9j2$nob$1...@dont-email.me...

Thanks Mark. Our late arrival this year made this Christmas the best we've
ever had. I've sent you a link to my Skydrive. Send me yours.

[Lesley]

"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:k_idnYF-Ws8Qgp_S...@giganews.com...

> On 1/2/2012 12:49 PM, Lesley wrote:
>>
>> [stupid bullshit snipped]

When the boys came out to play
Georgie Porgie ran away.

> Could this be Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
> Roscommon?

Run away Georgie Porgie. You had your chance to say something.

[George Plimpton]

On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley wrote:
>
>
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:k_idnYF-Ws8Qgp_S...@giganews.com...
>> On 1/2/2012 12:49 PM, Lesley wrote:
>>>
>>> [stupid bullshit snipped]
>
> When the boys came out to play
> Georgie Porgie ran away.
>
>> Could this be Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
>> Roscommon?
>
> Run away Georgie Porgie.

It's you, you fucking whore. I knew it.

[George Plimpton]

On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
Roscommon, bullshitted:
>
>
> [...]

First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley the Whore of
Ballaghaderreen - all have run away, all humiliated.

[Mark]

On 04/01/2012 06:23, Georgie Porgie wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>

> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley have run away

We haven't run away from you. Nobody's running away from you. If
anything we're just sick of chasing after you while you dishonestly run
away by deleting the newsgroups this thread is being posted to and
making the followups to alt.bullshit so that all our responses end up
somewhere no one can see them, little fish.

Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry,

[Merlin]

there is a real problem with your use of female anatomy and derogatory
accusations toward women as insults, GP.
constantly having to complain about your word use is becoming too
repetitive to become involved in any discussion.

in love,

merlin

[George Plimpton]

right on cue, little markie mullet showed up again to whine:

> On 04/01/2012 06:23, George Plimpton, scholar, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley have run away
>
> We haven't run away from you.

Yes, you did. You'll eventually do it again, too.

[George Plimpton]

On 1/4/2012 11:24 AM, Merlin wrote:
> On Jan 4, 1:23 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
>> Roscommon, bullshitted:
>>
>>
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley the Whore of
>> Ballaghaderreen - all have run away, all humiliated.
>
> there is a real problem with your use of female anatomy and derogatory
> accusations toward women as insults,

No. The only problem is your delusion that you will succeed in playing
your silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me. I won't play. You fail
in every post.

[Merlin]

On Jan 4, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 11:24 AM, Merlin wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 1:23 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
> >> Roscommon, bullshitted:
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley the Whore of
> >> Ballaghaderreen - all have run away, all humiliated.
>
> > there is a real problem with your use of female anatomy and derogatory
> > accusations toward women as insults,
>
> No.

yes, the constant need to place a disclaimer on any discussion that
involves your insults have become a problem.

>  The only problem is your delusion

we are not talking about your reviewable behavior on this thread and
others.
it is so abusive that there is nothing else to say about it.

unless you take a step back....

> that you will succeed in playing
> your silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me.  I won't play.  You fail
> in every post.

it isn't about winning you over, or playing a game, this post is an
explanation as tp why it has become impossible to deal with you
directly. you have become more and more shrill, it is regrettable.

you asked once why you were not liked..... it isn't about liking or
disliking you or treating one way or another. it is about your
personal behavior and over the top abuse of women........... that you
do not get it, is not anyone else's problem... except by not objecting
constantly to your behavior someone may be accused of over looking or
accepting your abuse...... your behavior is unacceptable, asked your
family for about his. tell your family about the language you are
using and defend yourself to a non-virtual person, that can give you
some guidance.

you would not use this language to face to face with a neighbor or
friend.

in love,

merlin

[George Plimpton]

On 1/4/2012 11:58 AM, Merlin wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 1/4/2012 11:24 AM, Merlin wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 1:23 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
>>>> Roscommon, bullshitted:
>>
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley the Whore of
>>>> Ballaghaderreen - all have run away, all humiliated.
>>
>>> there is a real problem with your use of female anatomy and derogatory
>>> accusations toward women as insults,
>>
>> No.
>
> yes,

No.

>> The only problem is your delusion
>
> we are not talking about your reviewable behavior

We are talking about your delusion that you will succeed in playing your
silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me. I won't play. You fail every
time.

>
>> that you will succeed in playing
>> your silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me. I won't play. You fail
>> in every post.
>
> it isn't about winning you over, or playing a game,

It's not about winning me over - that's impossible - but it *is* about
your attempt to play a silly, time-wasting Usenet game that I refuse to
play. For some reason, you have deluded yourself into thinking I'll
play, but I never will. You're trying to suck me into talking religion
with you, and I won't do it. All we ever talk about is your attempts at
sucking in suckers.

[Merlin]

On Jan 4, 3:11 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 11:58 AM, Merlin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 1/4/2012 11:24 AM, Merlin wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 4, 1:23 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
> >>>> Roscommon, bullshitted:
>
> >>>>> [...]
>
> >>>> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley the Whore of
> >>>> Ballaghaderreen - all have run away, all humiliated.
>
> >>> there is a real problem with your use of female anatomy and derogatory
> >>> accusations toward women as insults,
>
> >> No.
>
> > yes,
>
> No.
>
> >>   The only problem is your delusion
>
> > we are not talking about your reviewable behavior
>
> We are talking about your delusion that you will succeed in playing your
> silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me.  I won't play.  You fail every
> time.

again, unless you understand what is being said....... there may be
no hope for you.

this is being posted in hopes that you will understand what you are
doing and alter your behavior.

>
>
>
> >>   that you will succeed in playing
> >> your silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me.  I won't play.  You fail
> >> in every post.
>
> > it isn't about winning you over, or playing a game,
>
> It's not about winning me over -

this is very much about you. and your statements using the female
anatomy as insults.

this has nothing to do with your doubts about god, as these are
abstract concepts to many.

it is your actual use of insults that denigrate women as a group and
specific women on this thread.

it is unnecessary, and silence = compliance in this case.

> that's impossible - but it *is* about
> your attempt to play a silly, time-wasting Usenet game that I refuse to
> play.

you can say anything you wish about the ideas on in any posts.

it is your defamation of women and your use of the female reproductive
organs as insults that is the problem here.

>  For some reason, you have deluded yourself into thinking I'll
> play, but I never will.  You're trying to suck me into talking religion
> with you, and I won't do it.  All we ever talk about is your attempts at
> sucking in suckers.

this isn't about religion, this is about personal honor, and the value
you place on respect for everyone.

again, this is objecting to your use of the female reproductive organs
as insults to a gay man.

when you do not understand what is being said here, you may repeat
this behavior in an actual analogue encounter and that can lead you
into a real mess..........

blame anyone for anything you wish on here, just realized that your
lack of respect for yourself and women is making it difficult to
respond to your posts with out appearing to agree with your behavior.

in love,
merlin

[Loirbaj]

Lord and Savior
Come to Him

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit

[DanielSan]

On 1/4/2012 1:12 PM, Loirbaj wrote:
> Lord and Savior
> Come to Him

Jesus is a man. I am a man. I don't want to "come to him".

[George Plimpton]

On 1/4/2012 12:23 PM, Merlin wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:11 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 1/4/2012 11:58 AM, Merlin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2:37 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2012 11:24 AM, Merlin wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 4, 1:23 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2012 3:17 PM, Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
>>>>>> Roscommon, bullshitted:
>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> First not-merlin, then little markie mullet, now Lesley the Whore of
>>>>>> Ballaghaderreen - all have run away, all humiliated.
>>
>>>>> there is a real problem with your use of female anatomy and derogatory
>>>>> accusations toward women as insults,
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> yes,
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>> The only problem is your delusion
>>
>>> we are not talking about your reviewable behavior
>>
>> We are talking about your delusion that you will succeed in playing your
>> silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me. I won't play. You fail every
>> time.
>
> again, unless you understand what is being said

I understand full well that you are not really discussing religion, but
instead are just using religion as the bait to lure people into an
endless, silly, time-wasting Usenet game.

>>
>>
>>>> that you will succeed in playing
>>>> your silly, time-wasting Usenet game with me. I won't play. You fail
>>>> in every post.
>>
>>> it isn't about winning you over, or playing a game,
>>
>> It's not about winning me over -
>
> this is very much about you

No, it's about you and your lame attempt to suck people into an endless,
time-wasting and silly Usenet game.

>> that's impossible - but it *is* about
>> your attempt to play a silly, time-wasting Usenet game that I refuse to
>> play.
>
> you can say anything you wish about the ideas

There are no ideas in your posts. There is only worthless attempted
time-wasting.

>> For some reason, you have deluded yourself into thinking I'll
>> play, but I never will. You're trying to suck me into talking religion
>> with you, and I won't do it. All we ever talk about is your attempts at
>> sucking in suckers.
>
> this isn't about religion, this is about personal honor,

This is about your attempt to suck people into a silly, time-wasting
Usenet game, using religion as the bait.

[Lesley]

"Merlin" <merli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:266cb62b-bf72-4e02...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

His real name is Jonathan Ball and if you want proof of what you say follow the tiny URL
http://tinyurl.com/8yrg26s for a small glimpse into his aversion to female genitalia which he
describes as distempered tuna. Ball is a small man with Napoleon syndrome who hates everyone, but
hates women most of all. I believe a lot of his hate comes from being married to an obese woman
named Laura (distempered tuna?) who gave him a retarded son they named James. I do feel for them,
both, but I don't feel anything but contempt for Ball because he gets so much pleasure from trying
to hurt people. He's a bully who runs away from strong opposition. Keep your eye on the headers
before responding to him. He changes them so that your posts end up nowhere when he's beaten.

> it is unnecessary, and silence = compliance in this case.
>
>> that's impossible - but it *is* about
>> your attempt to play a silly, time-wasting Usenet game that I refuse to
>> play.
>
> you can say anything you wish about the ideas on in any posts.
>
> it is your defamation of women and your use of the female reproductive
> organs as insults that is the problem here.
>
>> For some reason, you have deluded yourself into thinking I'll
>> play, but I never will. You're trying to suck me into talking religion
>> with you, and I won't do it. All we ever talk about is your attempts at
>> sucking in suckers.
>
> this isn't about religion, this is about personal honor, and the value
> you place on respect for everyone.
>
> again, this is objecting to your use of the female reproductive organs
> as insults to a gay man.
>
> when you do not understand what is being said here, you may repeat
> this behavior in an actual analogue encounter and that can lead you
> into a real mess..........
>
> blame anyone for anything you wish on here, just realized that your
> lack of respect for yourself and women is making it difficult to
> respond to your posts with out appearing to agree with your behavior.

Absolutely right. Spot on.

> in love,
> merlin
>

[Lesley]

"Mark" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:je26cm$8gj$1...@dont-email.me...

If insulting people doesn't drive them off redirecting their posts to a different group is often his
next best option in running away from them. Watch him flatly deny it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:23:02 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>this has nothing to do with your doubts about god, as these are
>abstract concepts to many.

Why are these morons so stupid they can't grasp that outside their
religion, there is nothing to have doubts about?

[Jack Skolasky]

Lesley R. Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon,
bullshitted:
>
> [...]

Lesley R Simon - "reflexology" (foot rubbing) and fellatio
Aughalustia
Ballaghaderreen Roscommon
Ireland

Telephone (094)9861218


Give her a call. She likes to talk dirty over the phone.

[George Plimpton]

Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, bullshitted:
>
>

The foot-rubbing and blowjobs business is a little slow now, right?

[DanielSan]

On 1/4/2012 2:47 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote

> I don't understand this objection, "outside their religion", which I
> assume means among people who do not subscribe to religious beliefs,
> these concepts still exist. You reject them as folly, that's disbelief,
> which is the extreme of doubt. In any case, to say "there's nothing"
> just seems argumentative.

The concept exists. The entity as described by the concept has no
evidence for it so I cannot believe in it until there's evidence. There
is a concept of Lord Voldemort as well, but does anyone really believe
that Voldemort exists or did exist?

[Dutch]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote

[Merlin]

On Jan 4, 5:08 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:23:02 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >this has nothing to do with your doubts about god, as these are
> >abstract concepts to many.
>
> Why are these morons so stupid they can't grasp that outside their
> religion, there is nothing to have doubts about?

religion and god are not an abstract concepts to you?

in love,

merlin

[Christopher A. Lee]

No.

The moron imagines we have something to doubt.

We don't.

Any more than Christians doubt Zeus.

Is this really so hard to understand?

The language presumes we see it the same way they do, but doubt it.

[Mark]

On 04/01/2012 22:30, Jack Skolasky (Georgie Porgie) wrote:

{someone's real address plucked out}

That's not Lesley's surname and she doesn't live in Ireland either. Wow,
you really are a right nasty piece of work, little fish. Coulda least
used your real name to hassle this woman if she really does exist,
coward. Sucks to be you Jonathan Ball.

[George Plimpton]

right on cue, little markie mullet came back to whine:

>
>> Lesley R Simon - "reflexology" (foot rubbing) and fellatio
>> Aughalustia
>> Ballaghaderreen Roscommon
>> Ireland
>>
>> Telephone (094)9861218
>

> That's not Lesley's surname and

It's Lesley Simon. Cut the shit, bitch.

[Lesley]

Jonathan Ball wrote:

I don't live in Ireland. Those aren't my details. It isn't me. I'm going to ring her to see if
anything can be done to seek compensation from you over that, Jonathan Ball. Causing alarm and
distress is an offence these days Not like it wasn't in the past. How would you like it if I posted
your *NEW* postal address and telephone number all over newsnet for the many others you've pissed of
over the years to find you? You're a coward.

[Mark]

Don't do it Lesley. Don't sink to his level. He's a piece of scum with
no honour and not worth it. Beside, he has a retarded child to think
about and an unfortunate wife who probably goes through hell living with
the likes of him.

[Lesley]

"Mark" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:je2nqh$1d4$1...@dont-email.me...

I'll see what Lesley (if she actually exists) has to say and give her some advice. It's the least I
can do. I know Ball from old when I used to chat in alt.animals. ethics.vegetarian, and I know that
he has recently moved from Pasadena to Sacramento. Facebook is a great place to keep up with 'old
friends'.

[Mark]

You deleted all the newsgroups again and made the followup to
alt.bullshit hoping to hide your mistake from everyone, little fish.
Good job I saw it in time, desperate little fish.



On 04/01/2012 23:18, George Plimpton wrote:

> Mark wrote:

>> That's not Lesley's surname and
>
> It's Lesley Simon. Cut the shit, bitch.

No, you've fucked up big time on this. I know Lesley very well - have
done for years, and her surname is nothing like Simon, and she's never
been to Ireland in her life. You've fucked up little fish. You do that a
lot, don't you?

[Merlin]

On Jan 4, 5:47 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote
>

> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:23:02 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >>this has nothing to do with your doubts about god, as these are
> >>abstract concepts to many.
>
> > Why are these morons so stupid they can't grasp that outside their
> > religion, there is nothing to have doubts about?
>
> I don't understand this objection, "outside their religion", which I assume
> means among people who do not subscribe to religious beliefs, these concepts
> still exist. You reject them as folly, that's disbelief, which is the
> extreme of doubt. In any case, to say "there's nothing" just seems
> argumentative.

you are not paying attention to what is happening........

in love,

merlin

[Merlin]

On Jan 4, 5:53 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:47:18 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote

> >> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:23:02 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>this has nothing to do with your doubts about god, as these are
> >>>abstract concepts to many.
>
> >> Why are these morons so stupid they can't grasp that outside their
> >> religion, there is nothing to have doubts about?
>
> >I don't understand this objection, "outside their religion", which I assume
> >means among people who do not subscribe to religious beliefs, these concepts
> >still exist. You reject them as folly, that's disbelief, which is the
> >extreme of doubt. In any case, to say "there's nothing" just seems
> >argumentative.
>
> No.
>
> The moron imagines we have something to doubt.
>
> We don't.
>
> Any more than Christians doubt Zeus.
>
> Is this really so hard to understand?
>
> The language presumes we see it the same way they do, but doubt it.

zeus is still alive and is one of the role models for the modern
christian god.

the father god is a contribution of the greeks.

in love,

merlin

[George Plimpton]

Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon, bullshitted:

>
>
> I don't live in Ireland.

You used to live there.

> Those aren't my details.

They were.


> It isn't me.

It is. Cut the bullshit.

[Dutch]

"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote

Right, I get that. I understand the concept of Lord Voldemort, and I believe
that he is not real. But there is *something* there to disbelieve. God is
the same, a concept which lacks substantial evidence for a rational person
to believe in.

[Dutch]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:31m9g7h5md7475c73...@4ax.com...

So you're saying that "doubt" is not a strong enough term?

[Yap]

Is there any reason why we should be attracted to your concept?
I have a concept of a Flying Lizard which will grant me three
wishes....are you interested?

>
> in love,
>
> merlin

[Christopher A. Lee]

Is it?

To sensible people Voldemort doesn't get beyond a character in a
story.

Why not explain what "God" means to me?

Hint: as long as you can't think outside the theist paradigm you'll
keep getting it wrong.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Idiot.

[John Locke]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:48:47 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
wrote:

....actually there really are flying lizards (gliders) And if you wish
to actually witness these amazing creatures gliding from tree to tree,
that too is a possibility. Therefore, your concept, unlike the god
thing, is not that far fetched and quite refreshing as opposed to some
monster in the sky.

[Dutch]

"Merlin" <merli...@gmail.com> wrote

empty rhetoric

[Dutch]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:lq0ag7pb19vqbqe13...@4ax.com...

Yes. The only difference is that nobody is telling you to believe that
Voldemort actually exists, not that it would matter if they did.

>
> To sensible people Voldemort doesn't get beyond a character in a
> story.

Of course, thus I don't believe he actually exists. How is that different
than your conclusion about God? I don't believe he actually exists, he is a
made-up character, a myth.

> Why not explain what "God" means to me?

To you God means a fictional "supreme being" created by early humans (for
whatever reasons), a myth which has been perpetuated in various forms over
the millennia, (for other reasons). Ergo, you don't believe he exists.

> Hint: as long as you can't think outside the theist paradigm you'll
> keep getting it wrong.

God is a product of the theist paradigm, so what? I got it right. Your
objection that there is nothing to disbelieve is just silly and
argumentative.

[Dutch]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:u01ag7d9nhp7lr8b2...@4ax.com...

In other words you can't answer the question, and will continue with this
"inside/outside the theist paradigm " bullshit.

[Christopher A. Lee]

No. It means "a character out of somebody else's religion, in the same
class as Zeus, Odin and all the others".

It's a cultural or anthropological phenomenon.

Why do you imagine I should see it as anything more than that?

>whatever reasons), a myth which has been perpetuated in various forms over
>the millennia, (for other reasons). Ergo, you don't believe he exists.

It's a belief from somebody else's religion.

No different than Zeus.

A belief, not even a thing that could or couldn't exist.

>> Hint: as long as you can't think outside the theist paradigm you'll
>> keep getting it wrong.
>
>God is a product of the theist paradigm, so what? I got it right. Your
>objection that there is nothing to disbelieve is just silly and
>argumentative.

In your dreams.

So instead of even trying to grasp my POV you refuse to accept it and
resort to ad hominems.

Which of the atheist trolls who won't let me see it in the light I
actually do, are you?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Obviously not.

>> Idiot.
>
>In other words you can't answer the question,

It got what it deserved.

> and will continue with this
>"inside/outside the theist paradigm " bullshit.

Just because YOU can't grasp that there are other atheists don't see
it in the same way as you do, you resort to personal lies after being
called the idiot you were trolling for.

Why are you incapable of grasping that you're not a mind reader to
tell me what is in my mind, and haven't the courtesy to accept that I
have nothing to doubt?

We cannot be described as though the theist's inside-their-religion
presumptions even applied to us.

Which of the atheist trolls who troll other atheists, are you?

<plonk>

[Seb]

Jonathan Ball wrote:


> > I don't live in Ireland.
>
> You used to live there.
>
>
> > Those aren't my details.
>
> They were.
>
>
> > It isn't me.
>
> It is. Cut the bullshit.

You posted a woman's home address and phone number to
Usenet and invited people to contact her for sex. I
know you from old, Ball. You're a sick disgusting coward
and one day your past is going to catch up with you.

--

[Dutch]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:bb5ag7ho3brl43ffh...@4ax.com...

What does calling god a "character" accomplish? God is a figure in most
mainstream religions, we all know about the notion of "god". Some of us
think it's a fiction, others don't, that's all.

Why say "somebody else's" religion, do you have a different religion?

> It's a cultural or anthropological phenomenon.

Yea, so?

> Why do you imagine I should see it as anything more than that?

In what way does my characterization imply "more"? I think it is fiction, is
that more substantial than what you think?

>>whatever reasons), a myth which has been perpetuated in various forms over
>>the millennia, (for other reasons). Ergo, you don't believe he exists.
>
> It's a belief from somebody else's religion.

You mean not *your* religion, otherwise why not just say it is a figure from
religion?

>
> No different than Zeus.

In reality it isn't, but the concepts are slightly different.

> A belief, not even a thing that could or couldn't exist.

It *could* exist. There's no rational reason to think it exists, but that
doesn't make it impossible.

>
>>> Hint: as long as you can't think outside the theist paradigm you'll
>>> keep getting it wrong.
>>
>>God is a product of the theist paradigm, so what? I got it right. Your
>>objection that there is nothing to disbelieve is just silly and
>>argumentative.
>
> In your dreams.

No, in my waking opinion.

> So instead of even trying to grasp my POV you refuse to accept it and
> resort to ad hominems.

That wasn't an ad hominem, I said that "your objection" was argumentative, I
did not say anything about you personally.

>
> Which of the atheist trolls who won't let me see it in the light I
> actually do, are you?

That was an ad hominem, and challenging your position is not an attempt to
prevent you from seeing it in whatever light you choose, however as you must
realize putting your arguments up a newsgroup invites criticism.

In summary, I think I agree essentially with your ideas about religion, I
just think this particular tack you're taking is not quite coherent.

[Dutch]

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net>

> We cannot be described as though the theist's inside-their-religion
> presumptions even applied to us.

Which theist presumption applies to me when I state my belief that God is a
part of an elaborate myth created primarily to control the masses?

> Which of the atheist trolls who troll other atheists, are you?

I don't even know how to answer that. Do you always flip out like this when
your positions are challenged?

> <plonk>

Apparently so.

[George Plimpton]

On 1/4/2012 9:59 PM, Seb wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote:

No, he didn't.

[dh]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:59:38 +0000 (UTC), "Seb" <n...@home.com> wrote:

>Goo wrote:
>
>
>> > I don't live in Ireland.
>>
>> You used to live there.
>>
>>
>> > Those aren't my details.
>>
>> They were.
>>
>>
>> > It isn't me.
>>
>> It is. Cut the bullshit.
>
>You posted a woman's home address and phone number to
>Usenet and invited people to contact her for sex. I

>know you from old, Ball [Goo]. You're a sick disgusting coward

>and one day your past is going to catch up with you.

Here's something that Goo wrote to his boy Derek back in May 2002:

"Derek, here's what you do: make a whole lot of
accusations about Skank Bishop being a dirty low-down
horse rustler. See if she'll try to sue you. The
resulting legal fees on her end will fuck up her
planned "retirement" to Arizona in a major way." - Goo

[dh]

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:02:11 -0800, Goo lied:

>On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:59:38 +0000 (UTC), "Seb" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>

>>Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > I don't live in Ireland.
>>>
>>> You used to live there.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Those aren't my details.
>>>
>>> They were.
>>>
>>>
>>> > It isn't me.
>>>
>>> It is. Cut the bullshit.
>>
>>You posted a woman's home address and phone number to
>>Usenet and invited people to contact her for sex. I

>>know you from old, Ball [Goo]. You're a sick disgusting coward

>>and one day your past is going to catch up with you.
>

>No, he didn't.

It was you Goo, and in case anyone reads this who isn't familar with who Goo
is, you have posted as all of the following "different people" and more:

Jonathan Ball
Citizen
Benfez
Wilson Woods
Radical Moderate
Bingo
Edward
George
Bill
Fred
Mystery Poster
Merlin the dog
Bob the dog
sil...@onairos.com
elvira
Dieter
"Dieter d.Schmidt@deutsche_telekom.de"
<pricker...@yahoo.com>
Abner Hale
Roger Whitaker
Fucktard
Apoo
Ted Bell
notg...@yahoo.com
Jay Santos
mortons.s...@chicago.not
Rudy Canoza
Trappist
sb2...@yahoo.com
Leif Erikson
S. Maizlich
SlipperySlope
Eden
Sylvia Stevens
chico chupacabra
S. Maizlich
T. Howard Pines, Jr.
George Plimpton
Chrissy Degeer
Mauricio Rodriguez, Nihada Tutic and Tim Goss
Pete Crayne, Dare Adelekan, Cathy Demkiw, and about 16 others

[George Plimpton]

On 1/5/2012 6:06 PM, dh@. wrote:

>>>>> I don't live in Ireland.
>>>>
>>>> You used to live there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those aren't my details.
>>>>
>>>> They were.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It isn't me.
>>>>
>>>> It is. Cut the bullshit.
>>>
>>> You posted a woman's home address and phone number to
>>> Usenet and invited people to contact her for sex. I
>>> know you from old, Ball [Goo]. You're a sick disgusting coward
>>> and one day your past is going to catch up with you.
>>
>> No, he didn't.
>
> It was you

No.

[George Plimpton]

She disappeared. Good.

[Merlin]

On Jan 4, 8:48 pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:51 am, Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 5:08 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 12:23:02 -0800 (PST), Merlin <merlina...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >this has nothing to do with your doubts about god, as these are
> > > >abstract concepts to many.
>
> > > Why are these morons so stupid they can't grasp that outside their
> > > religion, there is nothing to have doubts about?
>
> > religion and god are not an abstract concepts to you?
>
> Is there any reason why we should be attracted to your  concept?

is not god an abstract concept to you?
does this not ring a bell in your noggin'?

> I have a concept of a Flying Lizard which will grant me three
> wishes....are you interested?

use them before he flies away.

in love,

merlin