I've returned after a bit.....
DishRoom1
to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and that
Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in, had
lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood, Mike
Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
Apparently, not much, sadly.
Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this newsgroup
and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and smear
still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
As a man who loved cartoons and comics since being a boy, this fandom was a
cinch since it's almost like a Disney with a mature twist. At last I get to
meet and talk about my cartoon hobbies and entertainment to other adults
without feeling like I should be sent to the little kids' luch table.
The way there seems to be so many obessed Democrats in this fandom who are more
concerned about some guy in the White House than about some "furry=sex" trash
article, the magic seems to be gone all of the sudden.
I was behind you guys all the way, even though I had to tolerate any sexual
lifestyle you have, whatever your philosophy on life is, laughed at your dirty
jokes. Even as a Creation-believing Christian I even tolerated your religions,
or your secularisms with evolution beleifs. I defended you in your darkest
hours, when I held you up from the "Furry=sex" jouralists and TV shows, Shawn
Keller, the debates on porn and nude artwork. I also have the aspirations of
being a furry artist and writer inside the fandom. I also got to make a couple
of visits to Anthrocon.
And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other names
or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for "Furry
Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What about
it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some furry
zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other than
giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far. I
still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a manga
comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out soon
as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising limited
mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and the
all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
refriderator or something.
Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept me for
what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't feel
like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
John SHughart III
Caged_Horse
>>And weren't you [dishroom1] leaving? You posted a long diatribe about
how you were leaving because everyone hated you and the things in which
you believed. It's important to stand by your convictions.
I commented (October 24th):
>I'm reminded of that old Daddy Bush joke -- saying "NO NEW TAXES!" was a
slip of the tongue, you know; what he meant to say was: "No, NEW TAXES!"
Replace 'taxes' with 'posts', and you've got dishroom1.
Replace it with 'draft', and you've got Bush Junior.
Liar, liar, Limbaugh-loving pants on fire...
The Vargr
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>Even as a Creation-believing Christian
>...
>And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other names
>or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
---
GAYPLAN - You'd Be Straight Without It!
Mike and Carole
>
> Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for
> "Furry
> Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What
> about
> it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some
> furry
> zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other
> than
> giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
I will take a look this week (we're moving the storehouse from one facility
to another, just sent two comics off to the printer, doing my day job,
writing SHANDA, and working on an exciting proposal, but I WILL GET TO IT
THIS WEEK.)
So we gave you a free copy already? From your statement I can't decipher if
we ran it and gave you a copy or not.
As for "getting over Bush" we have a son that's draft age. Don't expect us
to get over it.
Mike
Dan Skunk
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107045240...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> I was behind you guys all the way, even though I had to tolerate any
sexual
> lifestyle you have, whatever your philosophy on life is, laughed at your
dirty
> jokes. Even as a Creation-believing Christian I even tolerated your
religions,
> or your secularisms with evolution beleifs. I defended you in your darkest
> hours, when I held you up from the "Furry=sex" jouralists and TV shows,
Shawn
> Keller, the debates on porn and nude artwork. I also have the aspirations
of
> being a furry artist and writer inside the fandom. I also got to make a
couple
> of visits to Anthrocon.
>
> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
names
> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
From what I've seen, furs are overwhelmly liberal.
Believing in personal freedom, tolerance, non-violence, preserving nature,
etc.
There's also very unrestricted attitudes about physical affection and sex; a
high number of homosexuals and bisexuals.
They also seem to be overwhelmly secular in their beliefs, sceptical about
religion, trusting scientific evidence over faith.
Since most christians and republicans seem to be against all of this stuff,
it's not surprising that you would recieve a lot of flack for supporting
them.
I think, what might be more constructive, would be if we would explain what
we believe in and why--rather than making blanket attacks. Understanding
each other is a good starting point to gaining acceptance.
Most likely, I think, we are all the same in our desires; just for one
reason or another, have chosen different ways to pursue them.
BR
> Believing in personal freedom, tolerance, non-violence, preserving
> nature, etc.
> Since most christians and republicans seem to be against all of this
> stuff, it's not surprising that you would recieve a lot of flack for
> supporting them.
I'll let the above two statements speak for themselves.
> I think, what might be more constructive, would be if we would explain
> what we believe in and why--rather than making blanket attacks.
> Understanding each other is a good starting point to gaining acceptance.
>
>
That implies a desire to listen. Pardon me if I'm "skeptical" on that
score.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
BR
> If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
If you believe Dave exists, you're a carmel cake.
Seriously Dave, lose the name-calling and the attitude.
mhirtes
dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote:
> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
> back
> to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and that
> Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in, had
> lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood,
> Mike
> Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
>
> Apparently, not much, sadly.
>
> Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this
> newsgroup
> and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
>
> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and smear
> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
that's being swept under the rug.
And the notion that Bush "won" because America has a majority of
bible-banging loons who won't be happy until Jerry Falwell is declared
America's official mullah and the country becomes one giant christian
version of North Korea? OH yeah, We Who Can Still Think are just just so
happy about the Great Assimilation that is to come.
>
> For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
If you supported Bush, than you have a lot more to be ashamed about than
being a furry fan.
>
> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
> names
> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
If the hobnailed boot fits........
The Red Vargr Of Courage
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>If you believe Dave exists, you're a carmel cake.
Oh good lord, not that old "you can't prove that you exist so you are
TEH DUMB HA HA HA" chestnut.
The Red Vargr Of Courage
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>> Believing in personal freedom, tolerance, non-violence, preserving
>> nature, etc.
>
>
>> Since most christians and republicans seem to be against all of this
>> stuff, it's not surprising that you would recieve a lot of flack for
>> supporting them.
>
>I'll let the above two statements speak for themselves.
Judged on the Example of Bush & pals, I would suggest that he is
right.
The Red Vargr Of Courage
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
>> names
>> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
>
>If the hobnailed boot fits........
or THE OILED BLACK LEATHER JACKBOOT OF OPRESSION!!!!!!!!
Dan Skunk
"mhirtes" <m...@spammersarescum.com> wrote in message
news:mh-88A2D7.08...@news.west.cox.net...
> 1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
> that's being swept under the rug.
They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a lot
of people a lot of money. :)
Don Sanders
@aol.com says...
return, and did not give any parting shots, or returning shots. I
for one don't value such things as coming and going as fodder for
personal attacks and such. I'm just another user of the newsgroup.
Welcome back, it is the least I can say.
> Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for "Furry
> Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What about
> it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some furry
> zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other than
> giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
>
> Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far. I
> still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a manga
> comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
> comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out soon
> as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising limited
> mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and the
> all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
>
> I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
> theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
> refriderator or something.
>
> Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept me for
> what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't feel
> like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
>
Maybe it would be a good idea to think of the fandom as not a place
to enter and leave, but a concept that can easily be put aside for
other things. Again, aside from that, welcome back.
(Note, I do make it a habit of welcoming back anyone, even if
sometimes the views they see do not go along with mind. In a genre
that tries to explore that which is beyond human, I'm at least trying
to be human... Can anyone else out there attest to that?)
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
<a85f33b3b118ee3f...@localhost.talkaboutpets.com>,
oaco...@hotmail.com says...
And you are keeping score???
Don't mind me, I'm just baffled that anyone would even want to keep a
score card on who comes and goes.
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
@yahoo.co.uk says...
Hmmm, lets play a quick little game here folks...
If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
you get?
--
Don Sanders.
Don Sanders
brodr...@comcast.net says...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:54:25 +0000, The Vargr wrote:
>
> > If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
>
> If you believe Dave exists, you're a carmel cake.
>
> Seriously Dave, lose the name-calling and the attitude.
>
hard sometimes to follow who he is sometimes that I mostly have to
rely on the message headers to know if it is really him or not.
Of course that would label me as being intolerant to name changing
persons.
--
Don Sanders.
BR
> They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a
> lot of people a lot of money. :)
Gee, the cynicism seems to be deeper in this part of the stream. Guess
I'll have to put on my hip-waders, and a life vest. Never know when I
might step into a low point.
The Red Vargr Of Courage
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>Hmmm, lets play a quick little game here folks...
>
>If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
>you get?
A straw man.
you can belive in a relegion and not belive in the whole "god mad the
world in 7 days and evolution is not true" thing.
Richard dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, they have all comprehensivly
attacked and destryoed the foundations of creatonism.
Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.,
The Red Vargr Of Courage
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
I always keep the "d s a u n 1 2 a t yahoo . c o. u k" e-mail adress.
So that you know it's me.
Dan Skunk
"BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.07....@comcast.net...
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:32:55 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
> > They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a
> > lot of people a lot of money. :)
>
> Gee, the cynicism seems to be deeper in this part of the stream. Guess
> I'll have to put on my hip-waders, and a life vest. Never know when I
> might step into a low point.
*chuckles*
Dan Skunk
"Don Sanders" <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in message
news:cmlnbq$1i1g$1...@velox.critter.net...
> (Note, I do make it a habit of welcoming back anyone, even if
> sometimes the views they see do not go along with mind. In a genre
> that tries to explore that which is beyond human, I'm at least trying
> to be human... Can anyone else out there attest to that?)
By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
which is human.
Spirou
^-^
______________________________________________________
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with massive diarrhea,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
BR
> By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
> which is human.
And how well are we exploring all things non-human?
Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
BR
> Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.
Well they say don't feed the troll, but...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1344237&tid=134&tid=14
Have at it Dave, and by the time you've read it all. We'll all have moved
to new digs, and left no forwarding address.
Juan F. Lara
I don't know that for sure.
The problem is that the people on this board who identify themselves as
"conservative" are overwhelmingly prone to flamer behavior. Insults, teasing,
hate-mongering. People like Skyfire, Antrhocoon, and RHJunior revel in that
like high school bullies. If there is a lot of hatred directed against them
they bring it onto themselves because of their offensive behavior. In contrast
I have a lot of respect for Rich Chandler and libertarian MMM. Those guys know
how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the level
of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers that stay
flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
Silver Seams
news:cmm85a$sg5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu:
> I don't know that for sure. The problem is that the people on this
> board who identify themselves as "conservative" are overwhelmingly
> prone to flamer behavior.
Yes. The important bit being "who identify themselves as." There are
plenty of conservatives who are also conservative about what they post,
including leaving politics for a political forum.
(There are liberals who're like that, too. Wish there were more, of
both.)
--
http://www.silverseams.com/ - Fursuits, plushies, and other stuff
Currently on Furbid: Black and silver wolf tail
http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?alluser&Silver_seams
Don Sanders
>
> > By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
> > which is human.
>
> And how well are we exploring all things non-human?
>
> Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
>
>
"They say as men, we lost our tails, when we evolved from little
snails. Are we not men? We are Devo! Are we not men? D.E.V.O!"
:)
--
Don Sanders.
Felyne32k
says...
around here long enough to know the history of who started heiling or
comrading first. What we have, though, is a sort of arms race of
flaming; there's so much emotional investment in painting the other side
as WRONG and STUPID (conservatives on liberals) or CORRUPT and EVIL
(liberals on conservatives) and avoiding the other guy's paintbrushes
that nobody's going to back down; if someone starts trying to be polite,
he'll just get steamrolled.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
Dan Skunk
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:cmm85a$sg5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
Hard to tell who started it. Sometimes it's a few liberals bitching about
right wing christian loonies with each other that get's someone offended.
Most of the furs I've met and talked to about the subject are liberal. This
is just what I see.
Dan Skunk
>
> > By exploring that which is not human, we come to better understand that
> > which is human.
>
> And how well are we exploring all things non-human?
>
> Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
Umm... No... Animals. Their behaviour, comparing it to our own. Examining
the simularities and differences; determining what we share with them, and
what is different.
Wanderer
>
>> Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.
>
> Well they say don't feed the troll, but...
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1344237&tid=134&tid=14
>
<snip>
And here, in a nutshell, is why I don't get involved in that sort of
discourse. To quote:
"And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless:
You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An
argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through
evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is meant
to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to.
On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science
because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition,
unprovable belief.
When both sides are not even supposed to have common ground on which to
argue, the creationist/evolutionist debate is a non-sequitur on both sides.
"
All I'll say is that, in my family, we hold that Creation and evolution are
compatible.
Yours wolfishly,
The Christian,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Wanderer
>
> Might we find out that rocks have feelings, and clouds get depressed?
>
Of course! Surely you've heard of "The Little White Cloud That Cried"?
Yours with a wolfish grin,
The punny,
BR
> Umm... No... Animals. Their behaviour, comparing it to our own.
> Examining the simularities and differences; determining what we share
> with them, and what is different.
Well we've stopped flinging feces. :)
BR
> Umm... No... Animals.
Oh I forgot. What about plants? If you prick a plant, does it not 'leak'?*
*Oh come on audiance. you get the reference. ;)
FuzzWolf
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041107045240...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
back
> to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and
that
> Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in,
had
> lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood,
Mike
> Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
>
> Apparently, not much, sadly.
>
> Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this
newsgroup
> and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
>
> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and
smear
> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one
man....
Well, thanks for doing your part to keep the off topic political discussion
alive.
>
> For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
>
> As a man who loved cartoons and comics since being a boy, this fandom was
a
> cinch since it's almost like a Disney with a mature twist. At last I get
to
> meet and talk about my cartoon hobbies and entertainment to other adults
> without feeling like I should be sent to the little kids' luch table.
>
> The way there seems to be so many obessed Democrats in this fandom who are
more
> concerned about some guy in the White House than about some "furry=sex"
trash
> article, the magic seems to be gone all of the sudden.
The magic is gone because some people care more about the presidential
election than they do about trash tabloid articles? Your priorities are not
in order.
>
> Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far.
I
> still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a
manga
> comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
> comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out
soon
> as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising
limited
> mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and
the
> all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
This newsgroup isn't the sum total of all that's furry. Not being here
doesn't make you any more or less of a fur. It's good that you can still
enjoy your furry interests without having to be here.
>
> I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
> theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
> refriderator or something.
I think most would agree with me that no one here has just one interest or
thing they care about. Just because some people are concerned over politics
and world affairs doesn't mean they're not still enjoying the fandom. For a
lot of us, being a furry means the same as being a trekkie or a whovian.
Star Trek fans don't ignore who's running for president in the US in 2004 to
pay attention to who's leading the Federation in the 24th century. Why
should we be any different?
>
> Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept
me for
> what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't
feel
> like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
I formed a mailing list for furs who are also Doctor Who fans. Why not join
one of the furry Christians groups? I know there are a few out there on
Yahoo. I haven't heard of any yet, but I suspect there's probably a furry
Republicans group somewhere too and if not, start one up yourself! I
understand the pleasure of conversing with other furs who share interests
with me other than the fandom, you could do the same.
>
> John SHughart III
Fuzzy
Don Sanders
says...
</SillyPrincemoment>
Not trying to troll. I just need to release some repressed humor.
--
Don Sanders.
Wanderer
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:26:12 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
>> Umm... No... Animals.
>
> Oh I forgot. What about plants? If you prick a plant, does it not 'leak'?*
>
>
> *Oh come on audiance. you get the reference. ;)
>
Your reference to the Venetian merchant is appreciated.:>
Yours wolfishly,
The Shakespearean,
Philip M. Cohen
>
> "BR" <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.11.07....@comcast.net...
> > On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:16:56 +0000, The Red Vargr Of Courage wrote:
> >
> >> Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.
> >
> > Well they say don't feed the troll, but...
> >
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1344237&tid=134&tid=14
>
> <snip>
>
> And here, in a nutshell, is why I don't get involved in that sort of
> discourse. To quote:
>
> "And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless:
> You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An
> argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through
> evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
This is, however, entirely beside the point of the evolution-creationism
controversy in the US, in which the creationists (by which I mean
young-earth creationists and their ilk) are poaching on science's
territory. They claim that their myths, like Noah's Ark, are
scientifically supported, and should therefore have a place in public
schools alongside the truth. 'God created evolution' is anathema to the
creationists.
However, science proved beyond reasonable doubt, well before Darwin,
that views like the creationists' were scientific garbage. And the case
has only grown stronger since. There is no longer any reasonable doubt
that either (1) the universe is billions of years old and life on earth
evolved over that period, or (2) God created the universe in six days so
it looks to any reasonable informed person that it is billions of years
old and life on earth evolved over that period. Mighty few creationists
would buy either claim.
Am I saying that all young-earth creationists, and you can throw the
Intelligent Designists into that pile, are either unreasonable or
uninformed? No; there are a few honest ones who admit that if they
didn't take the Bible literally the evidence would force them to accept
evolution. But they're rare and uninfluential. The creationists I've met
have struck me as nice people, unlike the lying scum like Henry Morris
who lead the movement, but also unreasonable or uninformed. And that is
why the debate is not pointless: it is important to battle their
attempts to impose their ignorant dogma on the public schools.
--
Always carry a grapefruit, Treesong
Samantha Ann Patterson
DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Apparently, not much, sadly.
I am Moses, returned from on high! God commandeth thee
SIEG HEIL!
Samantha Ann Patterson
The Red Vargr Of Courage <dsa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>BR <brodr...@comcast.net> shall never vanquished be until great
>Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>
>
>TEH DUMB HA HA HA" chestnut.
The solution, of course is to ask them to repeat that line in person and
then knock their teeth out and say, "If I don't exist, why are your
teeth knocked out?" Not terribly clever but it tends to work. :)
Samantha Ann Patterson
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
>>
>
>
>If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
>you get?
>
it you want and it still comes out basically the same.
The Wiggling Aardvark
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
I heard someone say it was too PC to ask someone use the same name, so
I thought I'd offer up a script:
#!/bin/sh
#Random net-news kook name generator
adj_file=~/News/adjectives; #File of adjectives.
noun_file=~/News/nouns; #File of nouns.
#Get length of each file.
adj_len=`cat $adj_file | wc -l`
noun_len=`cat $noun_file | wc -l`
#Create some fake randoms from date. (The - is used by head later)
adj_num=`date "+-%d%w%H%M%S"`
noun_num=`date "+-%j%I%S%M"`
#Create index number to use.
adj_idx=`expr $adj_num % $adj_len`
noun_idx=`expr $noun_num % $noun_len`
#Fetch words.
adj=`head $adj_idx $adj_file | tail -1`
noun=`head $noun_idx $noun_file | tail -1`
NAME="The $adj $noun"
export NAME
echo "Your new name is $NAME"
rn
The Wiggling Aardvark
Juan F. Lara <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't know that for sure.
> The problem is that the people on this board who identify themselves as
>"conservative" are overwhelmingly prone to flamer behavior. Insults, teasing,
>hate-mongering. People like Skyfire, Antrhocoon, and RHJunior revel in that
>like high school bullies. If there is a lot of hatred directed against them
>they bring it onto themselves because of their offensive behavior. In contrast
>I have a lot of respect for Rich Chandler and libertarian MMM. Those guys know
>how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the level
>of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers that stay
>flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
>
merely attempting to make yourself sound credible by turning on your own.
SIEG HEIL! for you.
Shame on you.
The Wiggling Aardvark
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
>
>"They say as men, we lost our tails, when we evolved from little
>snails. Are we not men? We are Devo! Are we not men? D.E.V.O!"
>
YOU UNSPEAKABLE BASTARD. I had JUST had that song STUCK IN MY HEAD
for TWO WEEKS and I'd JUST gotten rid of it. I hate you!!!!
The Wiggling Aardvark
Wanderer <wand...@ticnet.com> cut and pasted:
You deserve a big fat SIEG HEIL but it doesn't really suit.
How about an AMEN!
As usual, you lie to protect your faith. You know that 'Creationism' is
the skool of thot wherein the universe was magically made a few thousand
years ago. So you bend it to try to cling to your ridiculous pantheist
interpretation of christianity.
Of course, that's of little wonder. It's easy to disprove christianity if
you don't. See, since you can never prove a negative, the trick is that
when a christian says, "Prove my religion is a fantasy." all one really
needs say is "Prove buddism or hindu is a fantasy." to the christian. The
only way you can disprove a religion, of course is to admit that all religions
are mythology. If you must know and accept Jesus to be saved, why would
God create people who are born buddist, muslim, hindu, etc? Is he not
all powerful? Is their God more right than yours? Or maybe he's a racist
and only some people are born to parents to teach them about him and will
go to heaven and the rest are savages.
Of course, you're just barely bright enough to realize this but too full of
insecurity to accept the truth, so you have to build this complex and
fragile world-view to claim you believe in all religions as aspects of
your religion while being sure to try to keep it in your mind that yours
is the REAL religion. It must be quite uncomfortable to be you. You're
a closet agnostic.
The Wiggling Aardvark
BR <brodr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:26:12 -0500, Dan Skunk wrote:
>
>> Umm... No... Animals. Their behaviour, comparing it to our own.
>> Examining the simularities and differences; determining what we share
>> with them, and what is different.
>
>Well we've stopped flinging feces. :)
>
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>>Even as a Creation-believing Christian
>>...
>>And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>>right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
>names
>>or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
>
>If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
>
But Jews -- well the Jews of Judaism -- share the same God and creation story
as well do. Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddism ahve their own gods and their
different creation stories that I no doubt are different from the evolution
tale, too.
In your definition, all these religous groups are "religous nutcakes", too.
Oopsie.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Dan Sanders wrote --
>>Hmmm, lets play a quick little game here folks...
>>
>>If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
>>you get?
>
>A straw man.
>
>you can belive in a relegion and not belive in the whole "god mad the
>world in 7 days and evolution is not true" thing.
>
>Richard dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, they have all comprehensivly
>attacked and destryoed the foundations of creatonism.
>
>Basic Science dictates that creationism cannot be true.,
If "science" succeeded in destorying God and the Creation history, then why do
so many people believe in them still?
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Wander wrote --
BR wrote --
But there's a problem to the how "the world cannot be created in 6 days" doubt:
You pronounce this doubt as if you are thinking that God is a human or
something or there there are limits to his power. The Truth is, God is not
human at all and there is no limit to what he could do. If the Bible said that
he created the Universe all in six days, and I believe it without a doubt. God
is a high powerful spirit being who could always do the impossible.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and
>smear
>> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
(W Bush.)
>1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
>that's being swept under the rug.
And whose fault is this? UH it's "Bush's and Blair's" fault. Oh surely it's not
the fault of the insurgent terrorists who actually killed the soilders.
Man, I knew that some people are against the virture of self-responsiblity,
but...
>And the notion that Bush "won" because America has a majority of
>bible-banging loons who won't be happy until Jerry Falwell is declared
>America's official mullah and the country becomes one giant christian
>version of North Korea? OH yeah, We Who Can Still Think are just just so
>happy about the Great Assimilation that is to come.
Still haven't gone to Canada?
John Shughart III
DishRoom1
mhirtes wrote --
>> 1000 (and counting) American deaths in Iraq. That's one Hell of a lump
>> that's being swept under the rug.
>
>They died for a good cause though. They got Bush re-elected and made a lot
>of people a lot of money. :)
>
Yeah, it was all for material gain. never mind that one nation of people was
finally freed from a 30-year old corrupt dictatorship and may have helped made
the west more safer in lives.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
Thanks fuzzy.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
>> Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for
>> "Furry
>> Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What
>> about
>> it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some
>> furry
>> zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other
>> than
>> giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
>
>I will take a look this week (we're moving the storehouse from one facility
>to another, just sent two comics off to the printer, doing my day job,
>writing SHANDA, and working on an exciting proposal, but I WILL GET TO IT
>THIS WEEK.)
>
>So we gave you a free copy already? From your statement I can't decipher if
>we ran it and gave you a copy or not.
Well, Mike, to be truthful I have not yet recieved a free copy in the mail to
my knowledge. But you plan to send a copy, that's fine. Sorry to hear that you
are working so hard.
>
>As for "getting over Bush" we have a son that's draft age. Don't expect us
>to get over it.
>
I've read that Bush denied that there will be a draft and the army would remain
to accept volenteers for recrutment. But I sencerely think it's nice that you
look out for your son, BTW. Thanks a lot.
John Shughart III
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
>back
>> to see if everyone is that much different after Bush was re-elected, and
>that
>> Kerry, the wonderkid for many liberal furries both had so much faith in,
>had
>> lost, all in disregard of the polls and the heated debates and Hollywood,
>Mike
>> Moore, and "Rock the Vote".
>>
>> Apparently, not much, sadly.
>>
>> Many furries are still in their "Bush cannot win" mode" both in this
>newsgroup
>> and with also some good furry personalities like artist Chris Saywer.
>>
>> While I respect other's views, I am dissapointed that hatred, fear and
>smear
>> still go on sharply in this fandom and on the outside just over one man....
>>
>> For the first time in my life, I feel ashamed of being a furry fan.
>>
>> As a man who loved cartoons and comics since being a boy, this fandom was a
>> cinch since it's almost like a Disney with a mature twist. At last I get to
>> meet and talk about my cartoon hobbies and entertainment to other adults
>> without feeling like I should be sent to the little kids' luch table.
>>
>> The way there seems to be so many obessed Democrats in this fandom who are
>more
>> concerned about some guy in the White House than about some "furry=sex"
>trash
>> article, the magic seems to be gone all of the sudden.
>>
>> I was behind you guys all the way, even though I had to tolerate any sexual
>> lifestyle you have, whatever your philosophy on life is, laughed at your
>dirty
>> jokes. Even as a Creation-believing Christian I even tolerated your
>religions,
>> or your secularisms with evolution beleifs. I defended you in your darkest
>> hours, when I held you up from the "Furry=sex" jouralists and TV shows,
>Shawn
>> Keller, the debates on porn and nude artwork. I also have the aspirations
>of
>> being a furry artist and writer inside the fandom. I also got to make a
>couple
>> of visits to Anthrocon.
>>
>> And now, in return the thanks I get in return is by being labled as a
>> right-wing goof, a homophobe, a "bigot", a "religous nutcake", and other
>names
>> or accusations I can't think of at the moment. Wow, you're welcome. :-(
>>
>Just keep in mind that there are some who noticed your leaving, and
>return, and did not give any parting shots, or returning shots. I
>for one don't value such things as coming and going as fodder for
>personal attacks and such. I'm just another user of the newsgroup.
>Welcome back, it is the least I can say.
>
>
>> Oh, and by the way, I once drew a pic of a character for fan art for "Furry
>> Ninja High School" and I have not yet seen anything of it so far. What
>about
>> it, Mike and Carole? I also managed to get some art published in some furry
>> zine once, but I haven't yet since heard from the publishers anymore other
>than
>> giving me a free copy of the book with my art on one page.
>>
>> Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far. I
>> still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a
>manga
>> comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
>> comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out
>soon
>> as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising
>limited
>> mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and
>the
>> all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
>>
>> I'm still doing something with my furriness, while you all mope around in
>> theries of Bush stealing away your right to have a light bulb in your
>> refriderator or something.
>>
>> Sigh, maybe if I could leave the fandom and find others who would accept me
>for
>> what I am no matter how they disagree with me on politics or God. I don't
>feel
>> like I'm part of the family like I used to anymore.
>>
>
>Maybe it would be a good idea to think of the fandom as not a place
>to enter and leave, but a concept that can easily be put aside for
>other things. Again, aside from that, welcome back.
>
>(Note, I do make it a habit of welcoming back anyone, even if
>sometimes the views they see do not go along with mind. In a genre
>that tries to explore that which is beyond human, I'm at least trying
>to be human... Can anyone else out there attest to that?)
>
Thanks, Don. :-)
John Shughart III
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> I've decided, that after a short leave from this newsgroup, I might return
No, sorry that I wasn't making myself clear! 8-X I meant it seemed the magic
is gone because people seemed to be into fighting and hating one another other
than just polite disagreements while remembering that we were a united
community. And also that this fandom seemed to be a more mature experience for
my love for cartoons since I've discovered "Xanadu: Across Diamond Seas" over a
decade ago. That was the "magic" I was refering to.
>
>>
>> Oh, and just incase you're curious, I'm still buying furry comics so far.
>I
>> still recieve in my comic-book pull box "Furrlough", "What's Michael" (a
>manga
>> comedy about a non-anthro cat), plus waiting for a new "David and Goliath"
>> comic anytime now, and any new "Rhu'purrt Prince of Fur" comic to come out
>soon
>> as well. I have also made new orders for two new seemingly-promising
>limited
>> mini series, "Wild Girl" (first issue to come this coming Wednesday) and
>the
>> all ages "Lions, Tigers and Bears".
>
>This newsgroup isn't the sum total of all that's furry. Not being here
>doesn't make you any more or less of a fur. It's good that you can still
>enjoy your furry interests without having to be here.
>
Yeah, I know. we have had off-topic threads here before, even politics is OK.
Again I just didn't like hate and the bitterness that was breaking up our
community as well as also America and the globe.
John Shughart
The Feminist Aardvark
DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
Mooooooooo! (Because he can't even get being a sheep right)
The Feminist Aardvark
DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
Baaaah! (That's better John)
The Feminist Aardvark
The Feminist Aardvark
The Feminist Aardvark
The Feminist Aardvark
The Feminist Aardvark
DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
*whisper* sieg heil *whisper*
Dan Skunk
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041108035045...@mb-m14.aol.com...
The point is not whether he can do it or not, but that when we estimate the
age of the world by the record of it in the bible, we come out with only a
few thousand years when in fact the world is billions of years old.
Furthermore, when we look at the history of life on the planet, we see it
slowly evolving over billions of years--not 6 days.
Oh course, one could say He made it billions of years old in 6 days. :P But
in that case, the bible is being very misleading--what reason would there be
to record such an inaccurate and nebulous account? The most reasonable
explanation would be that the author did not know the true history of
creation and what is written was the best theory of the time.
Further evidence that this is the true nature of the text is found in
Genesis 1:6-8 where we find reference to an old theory about how water stays
in the sky. It used to be thought that there was a vault holding it there.
They had never studied the sky closely enough to find that it wasn't there.
The real question is why people continue to believe in such theories in
spite of modern evidence to the contrary. What appeal do they have?
Dan Skunk
That, my friend, is a logical fallacy. Just because everyone believes in
something, doesn't make it true. At one time, everyone believed the world
was flat--and that turned out to be false.
The simple answer to the question would be, "people are ignorant and
stupid."
Dan Skunk
Yet other people are left to suffer under corrupt dictatorships without our
help. Obviously this is not the reason for the war.
Making the west safer is much more likely the goal.
Dan Skunk
"Samantha Ann Patterson" <cir...@armory.com> wrote in message
news:418f1f21$0$95599$c0de...@dsl.net...
> In article <20041107045240...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
> DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Apparently, not much, sadly.
> I am Moses, returned from on high! God commandeth thee
> SIEG HEIL!
>
What is all this "SIEG HEIL" stuff?
BR
> What is all this "SIEG HEIL" stuff?
Just plonk the author. You'll never get an answer.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.
BR
> That, my friend, is a logical fallacy. Just because everyone believes in
> something, doesn't make it true. At one time, everyone believed the
> world was flat--and that turned out to be false.
That could also be said of evolutionist as well.
John Urie
Dan Skunk wrote:
Ven Herr Dishroom says
"I haf come back to dis place."
Ve HEIL!...HEIL!
Right in Herr Dishroom's face.
Don Sanders
says...
> In article <cmmk3b$13ev$1...@velox.critter.net>,
> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >"They say as men, we lost our tails, when we evolved from little
> >snails. Are we not men? We are Devo! Are we not men? D.E.V.O!"
> >
> >Don Sanders.
>
> YOU UNSPEAKABLE BASTARD. I had JUST had that song STUCK IN MY HEAD
> for TWO WEEKS and I'd JUST gotten rid of it. I hate you!!!!
>
>
Could be worse, it could be "Banana-Phone."
Thanks Samantha for bringing that one up in either another thread or
another post, I can't remember right now, I got this damn song in my
head. :)
--
Don Sanders
Who sometimes knows how to Whip it! Whip it good!
Don Sanders
says...
> In article <20041108034323...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> Baaaah! (That's better John)
>
Baaah! = A sheep.
Baaah! Humbug = A sheep who read too much Dickens.
Baaah Baaah Looo! = A sheep who either watched too much Quickdraw McGraw
as a lamb, or who has an obsession with Ricky Ricardo.
Baah Baah Ba loo Bop! = A sheep who loves Jazz.
Haaab! = Needs no exclamation, but for the benefit of some readers who
can't get the joke... A Dyslexic sheep.
Buuub *Snick!* = Let's face it, even some sheep love a certain X-men
character.
Buuuurp! = It was a sheep, but Wanderer got to it first. :)
Uuh Uuh Oooh, Oh ghod Oh ghod! Faster! = Hmmm, I think I am getting a
bit out of hand here so I won't continue, let's just say yes, it is an
ewe, but I won't go into what she is doing. :)
Ok, I guess that should be enough to inject a bit of humor into this
thread... Some of you are getting way too serious with this. Lighten up
a bit or I will go into detail about what that ewe is doing. :)
--
Don Sanders.
Who comes from a place where men are men, women are women and Sheep are
used as objects of humor. (Want to know what that ewe is doing?) :)
Don Sanders
says...
> In article <cmlngr$1i1g$3...@velox.critter.net>,
> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If you believe in creationism, you *are* a religious nutcake.
> >>
> >
> >
> >If you remove creationism and replace it with any religion, what do
> >you get?
> >
> it you want and it still comes out basically the same.
>
>
I think you forgot that they last forever and is near indestructible. :)
--
Don Sanders.
Who still loves fruitcake, it sticks to your ribs, and your spleen, and
your stomach lining...
Don Sanders
says...
> In article <20041108033955...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mooooooooo! (Because he can't even get being a sheep right)
>
thread but I just could not resist myself. Something steer-ed me to
this and I could not pasture it up. I figure it was a good moment to
get my salt-licks in. If this is starting to sound like a Wanderer
luring pun reply, it sure rings a cow-bell, and that ain't no bull
either. Yep, I know I sound a bit bossie with my reply, but like I
said, I could not resist, the Calf-feen made me do it. I'm just burning
off some old age Angus-ist. hehehe.
--
Don Sanders.
A punner in his own field.
iBuck
But evolution isn't a matter of belief, it's a scientific theory that as of
right now best explains the nature of life on earth, if it goes someday, it
will be because someone will have found somthing that provides better answers
to all the questions...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Dave The Crab Eating Zorro
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>"And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is pointless:
>You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An
>argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through
>evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
Straw Man.
When I said Creationism,
"god made the world in 7 days and evolution is not true" "
I refered SPECFICALY to the belief that god one day said: "poof" and
then the universe magicaly existed and that it is only a few thousand
years old or something.
Shame on you.
>It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is meant
>to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to.
>On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science
>because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition,
>unprovable belief.
Prove that all the other relegions which claim to be the one true
relegion are not real please.
---
GAYPLAN - You'd Be Straight Without It!
iBuck
>more
>> concerned about some guy in the White House than about some "furry=sex"
>trash
>> article, the magic seems to be gone all of the sudden.
Gee, golly, god forbid some people in this fandom have broader concerns about
the world around us, than a fading trend in media coverage of the fandom that
hasn't reared it's ugly head in almost a year now...
iBuck
>compatible.
So do I, but that doesn't mean that they both should have equal time spent on
them in a science classroom. Or that evolution's flaws get highlighed, while
creationism gets a free pass on error checking...
iBuck
>Intelligent Designists into that pile, are either unreasonable or
>uninformed?
I don't mind, Intelegent Designers, as long as they can explain how their
Designer came about with out one of it's own... and if it could come about on
it's own, why couldn't we...
Philip M. Cohen
>> or (2) God created the universe in six days so
> >it looks to any reasonable informed person that it is billions of years
> >old and life on earth evolved over that period. Mighty few creationists
> >would buy either claim.
> But there's a problem to the how "the world cannot be created in 6 days" doubt:
> You pronounce this doubt as if you are thinking that God is a human or
> something or there there are limits to his power. The Truth is, God is not
> human at all and there is no limit to what he could do. If the Bible said that
> he created the Universe all in six days, and I believe it without a doubt. God
> is a high powerful spirit being who could always do the impossible.
From which I conclude that (1) you can't read, and (2) you do buy the
claim; i.e., you think God is a goddamn liar.
--
Always carry a grapefruit, Treesong
iBuck
>> he created the Universe all in six days, and I believe it without a doubt.
>God
>> is a high powerful spirit being who could always do the impossible.
True, but then the universe should -look- like it was created (And then tweeked
during the flood) as as described in the bible. And that's where the problem
comes in, IT DOESN'T....
Which leads you to the inescapable conclusion, that either god engaged in a
grand act of deception in the creation of the universe, or that somebody
mortally fabile, recorded a tale that did not reflect god's actual actions...
Either way, Biblical Inerrancy is out the window...
The Saprophyte
Don Sanders wrote:
*holds envelope to forehead*
"Sis Boom Bah..."
*opens envelope and reads*
"Describe the sound made by a sheep exploding."
--
The Amazing Saprophyte
--
Silver Seams
news:20041108123541...@mb-m29.aol.com:
> Gee, golly, god forbid some people in this fandom have broader
> concerns about the world around us, than a fading trend in media
> coverage of the fandom that hasn't reared it's ugly head in almost a
> year now...
Still, though, I'd score "outdated but on-topic" higher than "current but
off-topic," if it was all up to me.
--
http://www.silverseams.com/ - Fursuits, plushies, and other stuff
Currently on Furbid: Black and silver wolf tail
http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?alluser&Silver_seams
Juan F. Lara
> doubt: You pronounce this doubt as if you are thinking that God is a human or
> something or there there are limits to his power. The Truth is, God is not
> doubt. God is a high powerful spirit being who could always do the
> impossible.
That's a copout. By having God make everything possible you've abandoned
your ability to think. Since "God make everything possible" can be used to
explain anything you don't think about anything. That's why everyone here
thinks you're rock stupid.
I'm a physicist. I can explain how many things work through mathematical
theories and through testing. I love that humans can do that. Curiousity and
the ability to investigate are basic parts of the human spirit. That spirit
has to always be kept alive.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
DishRoom1 <dish...@aol.com> wrote:
> But Jews -- well the Jews of Judaism -- share the same God and creation story
> as well do.
I don't believe that insistence that the seven-day 6000 year story is true
to the letter is prevalent in either Judaism and Islam. Probably only in the
most Orthodox and Fundamentalist groups, groups whose tendencies have made them
as much public menaces as Christian Fundamentalist groups.
> Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddism ahve their own gods and their different creation
> stories that I no doubt are different from the evolution tale, too.
Yes, very different creation stories. And the creationist movement would
silence them all and force only Creationist dogma.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
The Wiggling Aardvark <cir...@armory.com> wrote:
> In article <cmm85a$sg5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> Juan F. Lara <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
>> how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the
>> level of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers
>> that stay flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
> You nearly sounded credible until that last line where you reveal that you're
> merely attempting to make yourself sound credible by turning on your own.
Excuse me? What are you talking about? I would not be credible if I
asserted that all flaming was done only by the self-proclaimed right wingers.
That's not even realistic. C'mon, you're smart enough to know that flaming has
happened on both sides. I didn't think I'd be fair not to acknowledge that.
And what's this "your own" stuff? I don't remember joining any group. I
just post what I think is right.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Dan Skunk <_@rogers.com> wrote:
> Hard to tell who started it. Sometimes it's a few liberals bitching about
> right wing christian loonies with each other that get's someone offended.
Who cares who started it? So called rightwing trolls like Antrhocoon
perpetuate it with flame threads. The only person who calls himself leftwing
and who's like that is Dave Saunders. I really think that if the rightwing
trolls like AM, Darrel Exine and Skyfire stop their flaming the other side will
stop because they have nothing to post about. Except for Dave Saunders, whom
most people ignore as a loon.
- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
Juan F. Lara
Who said destroying Creation history destroys God? I never felt that was
true, but Creationists hold that up as a scare tactic to hold supporters in
fear.
> then why do so many people believe in them still?
That's an idiotic line of reasoning. A large number of people still
believe in witchcraft, ghosts, vampires, weres. But that doesn't mean they're
all real.
- Juan F. Lara
Don Sanders
says...
(Of course with my sick, twisted mind the only exploding Ewe I can
imagine is one drawn by... should I speak his name? Oh heck, why not...
Doug Winger. Now he knows how to make a Ewe explode, in certain places
and in certain ways. Sorry I just could not resist myself.)
--
Don Sanders.
Who awaits the Psychedelic Sheep Explosion, in Technicolor! :)
Samantha Ann Patterson
Eh. It was a personal amusement thing. Basically the gist of it was
this. There are certain people that chatter like magpies making
excuses and justifications for a rather hateful right-wing agenda, and
they're proud of supporting people who are bent on the suffering and
oppression of others. Nothing you can say will change their mind, so
I thought I'd just simply their posts to what they really ment:
For example: SIEG HEIL! is simply, 'I'm saying something which defends
some stance that is hateful and harmful to some other group of people.'
or 'I support my leader unconditionally and without thought.' So yeah,
basically calling them nazis, but heck, if the jackboot fits...
The BAAAAH on the other hand is mindelss christian sheepage. IE: I believe
exactly what's written in the bible and nothing will make me think about
it for even half a milisecond.
In short, I realized this. These people are not worth my time and yet I
still find them frustrating. They've proven that silly things like
reason are completely ineffective, so the best thing to do is agree with
by returnign their agenda with a nazi salute or bleat of compliance
accordingly. One or two word responses are difficult to argue with.
Hard to twist and nitpick and try desperately to declaim. Also, they
take no time to write, so I can just respond to them and move on.
I guess my plan was that I didn't want to completely killfile people
because every now and then even the nutjobs post on topic and I'd really
like to encourage them to do that more. I hadn't counted on how numerous
the SIEG HEILs and BAAAHs would be. When one is taking time to respond
to a flame, one doesn't realized they've wasted their afternoon
responding to 80 stupid flames and accomplished nothing except wasting
their own time. Anyhow, I think if I just killfile Anthrocoon Bighair
and John Shrugoff, it'll probably reduce the number to a much less
assinine level. Some people just aren't worth the benefit of the doubt.
Eh. It was an attempt to simplify the idiotic statements of Saint John
Shoggoth and the like, but they're such gibbous and chattering little
monkeys that didn't anticipate how spammy
Samantha Ann Patterson
Samantha Ann Patterson
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
>In article <418f2b14$0$95604$c0de...@dsl.net>, cir...@armory.com
>says...
>> In article <cmmk3b$13ev$1...@velox.critter.net>,
>> Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"They say as men, we lost our tails, when we evolved from little
>> >snails. Are we not men? We are Devo! Are we not men? D.E.V.O!"
>> >
>> >Don Sanders.
>>
>> YOU UNSPEAKABLE BASTARD. I had JUST had that song STUCK IN MY HEAD
>> for TWO WEEKS and I'd JUST gotten rid of it. I hate you!!!!
>>
>>
>Could be worse, it could be "Banana-Phone."
>
>Thanks Samantha for bringing that one up in either another thread or
>another post, I can't remember right now, I got this damn song in my
>head. :)
>
Wanderer
As you lie in your hole in the ground,
You claim that the lying is mine to be found.
You claim that my heartfelt belief is a lie.
To understand my view you simply won't try.
My family holds, we believe it is true,
In Creation by God, and evolving things, too.
If God made the world, why then who can say when
It began? Must we have this whole struggle again?
My family believes, even though you deny,
That Darwin's great theory is never a lie.
The animals change with the needs of survival,
And each less-fit species replaced by a rival.
We side with most Christians, with many, not few,
When we say that this world was created. We do!
The religion you blast is not ours to profess.
It's called "Pure Creationism". What a mess!
It's held by the folks in Pat Robertson's clique,
And the thought-twists required make my family sick.
We hold our Creator does not trick or lie.
Why others believe this? We do not know why.
But we looked at the evidence, weighed it and found
The two schools compatible, down to the ground.
As my first pastor said it, I happ'ly explain,
"When you turn on your faith, you don't turn off your brain!"
The "purists" interpret the figure one way,
By ruling a thousand years equals a day.
There's Biblical precedent, yes, it is true,
But why stop at thousand? A million or two?
The truth is, although this might come as a blow,
We say with most Christians, "We simply don't know".
"We hold to our faith in the Lord of Creation,
Who placed all the planets, gave stars elevation,
Divided the waters to make sea and land,
And all of this made just by His mighty hand.
But why would the Lord, in all reason and rhyme,
Create His Creation, then freeze it in time?
Of course things can change! It's a wonder to see!
It's proof of how wondrous our God can still be!
He didn't make statues, to stand in their place,
But creatures that live, and the whole human race!
We change, Best Beloved, we change and we grow,
And what it all leads to... well, He'd surely know."
I don't mean, dear Aardvark, to sound rude or snide,
But most Christians are... well, along for the ride.
We don't know God's plan, nor His own Great Intention;
We're glad just to be here, His greatest invention.
And if, as is rumor'd, some life out in space
Exists that would rival the great human race,
Then He must have made them! Yes, surely He must!
Who says He must stop with *one* handful of dust?
And if we can find them, we'll gladly invite
Them into our churches, and with them unite.
You see, dearest Aardvark, our God is Divine.
We don't make Him limited, don't draw a line,
And say, "Here, no farther! This, God cannot do!"
I can't tame Behemoth, dear Aardvark. Can you?
I wasn't yet born when our God from his throne
Did first lay of Earth that unique cornerstone.
I don't know His limits, and, happy to say,
I don't think he has 'em.
I bid you good day.
Yours as a thinker, and poet, and ponderer,
The good Christian furry that you know as,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
The Lesbian Nut
>believe in witchcraft, ghosts, vampires, weres. But that doesn't mean they're
>all real.
The Lesbian Nut
Juan F. Lara <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
>In article <418f2a7b$0$16275$c0de...@dsl.net>,
>The Wiggling Aardvark <cir...@armory.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <cmm85a$sg5$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
>> Juan F. Lara <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>>> how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the
>>> level of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers
>>> that stay flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
>
>> You nearly sounded credible until that last line where you reveal that you're
>> merely attempting to make yourself sound credible by turning on your own.
>
> Excuse me? What are you talking about? I would not be credible if I
>asserted that all flaming was done only by the self-proclaimed right wingers.
>That's not even realistic. C'mon, you're smart enough to know that flaming has
>happened on both sides. I didn't think I'd be fair not to acknowledge that.
> And what's this "your own" stuff? I don't remember joining any group. I
>just post what I think is right.
>
Are you really so blind to the assertions contained in 'As they should be?'
Your implication in the above statement is this: Right wingers should be
quiet and confident and if they are, left wingers will be ignored, which
is as it shoudl be because they're wrong anyhow.
There's an implied bias in your statement. That's all I was pointing out.
Get rid of those last 4 words and there would have been nothing to contend
with.
The Lesbian Nut
John is will on his way to shooting abortion doctors, I'm afraid.
Felyne32k
@aol.com says...
> Yeah, it was all for material gain. never mind that one nation of people was
> finally freed from a 30-year old corrupt dictatorship and may have helped made
> the west more safer in lives.
>
How much safer would we, and how much freer would they be, if we had
never set that thing up in the first place? How much safer would we be
if we didn't keep cranking out brand-new recruitment posters for the
resistance every couple months? Or if our leaders actually listened to
military advisors instead of rushing ahead into catastrophic success?
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
Wanderer
news:LrKjd.548$ry5...@fe51.usenetserver.com...
As most of this is opinion, I shall only criticize your interpretation of
the following:
> Further evidence that this is the true nature of the text is found in
> Genesis 1:6-8 where we find reference to an old theory about how water
> stays
> in the sky. It used to be thought that there was a vault holding it there.
> They had never studied the sky closely enough to find that it wasn't
> there.
In the first place, ancient people studied the sky intensely. They had to,
to predict the weather and know whether their crops were in trouble.
Finding a different way to call them "stupid ancient people" really isn't
less arrogant.
Second, where are you getting this?
Genesis 1:6-8
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let
it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
In this passage, God is seperating the water in the air from the water on
the ground. This is an improvement over the ancient Greeks, who classified
rain as a type of meteor (thus, "meteorology"), as it assumes a unity
between the rain and the sea... they are both water, differing only by
location. There's no discussion of a "vault", or other container, so I'm at
a loss as to how you derived this.
Now, if you're being quite literal, then there's this:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07549&version=kjv
Firmament, in the Hebrew original, was "raqiya", or "extended surface
(solid)". According to the Hebrew interpretation, this would be a wall
which held back the waters. According to this theory, later popular in
Renaissance Europe, the wall is set above the sky, and provides a track upon
which the lights of the heavens move. (The Renaissance, being slightly more
fanciful, called it a "crystal sphere", which made music as it turned.
Thus, the "music of the spheres", since there were supposed to be several
layers of crystal.) The same interpretation appears in Genesis 6:11:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the
seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the
great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Of the three different words the KJV interprets as "windows", the one here
is 'arubbah, also meaning a sluice or floodgate.
But again, this requires a very literal interpretation.
Yours wolfishly,
The confuzzled,
artist
news:20041108105948...@mb-m29.aol.com:
>>That could also be said of evolutionist as well.
>
> But evolution isn't a matter of belief, it's a scientific theory
> that as of right now best explains the nature of life on earth,
> if it goes someday, it will be because someone will have found
> somthing that provides better answers to all the questions...
And yet, at the same time, science aknowledges it's only the best
solution of all available. That is, it is not conclusive. So in the
end, it is a matter of belief in the most likely solution known at the
moment. ;)
--
AIM: GCCFurryBoy
mell...@yahoo.com
http://www.practialdesigns.com/blog/
Juan F. Lara
The Lesbian Nut <cir...@armory.com> wrote:
>>>> how to keep their cool. If most right wing posters had that civility the
>>>> level of hate in this group wouldn't be so high. And the left wing flamers
>>>> that stay flamers would be disregarded as they should be.
> Are you really so blind to the assertions contained in 'As they should be?'
> Your implication in the above statement is this: Right wingers should be
> quiet and confident and if they are, left wingers will be ignored, which
> is as it shoudl be because they're wrong anyhow.
Left Wing FLAMERS. Flamers that should be ignored because they are
flamers, not because they are left wing. That's the "as it should be" part.
- Juan F. Lara
Wanderer
news:418fae1c...@news.individual.net...
> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> shall never vanquished be until great
> Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>
>>"And that's exactly why the whole creationism/evolution debate is
>>pointless:
>>You can never prove or disprove that one didn't precede the other. An
>>argument can easily be made that God created all of it's creatures through
>>evolution. To wit, that God created evolution.
>
> Straw Man.
Considering it's a quote, I wonder why you're bothering me with this
complaint.
>
> When I said Creationism,
>
> "god made the world in 7 days and evolution is not true" "
Oh, Literal Creationism. Sorry, that's a minority view that I don't agree
with. My view doesn't really have a name, but could be called "Ineffable
Creationism" if you really had to name it something.
>
> I refered SPECFICALY to the belief that god one day said: "poof" and
> then the universe magicaly existed and that it is only a few thousand
> years old or something.
Sorry, that's not in the quote and not in my worldview.
>
> Shame on you.
Yes, how dare I be a reasonable, thinking Christian. Don't I understand you
only want to find a brainless, gutless, "Pat Robertson for President" type
to argue with, since that's the only one you can beat?
>
>>It's kind of like science proving that God is not real. The effort is
>>meant
>>to fail because science cannot deal with God because it isn't designed to.
>>On the other side, religion cannot, for the most part, deal with science
>>because religion rests on a premise of faith which is by definition,
>>unprovable belief.
>
> Prove that all the other relegions which claim to be the one true
> relegion are not real please.
>
That's still a quote, and did not define which religion, since all religions
are based on faith. Thus, the quote remains true, no matter how you close
your ears, close your eyes, and sing "Hava Nagila".
Yours wolfishly,
The ever-quoting,