why are there so many pedophiles and molesters
zara
Is that part of the "mac experience"?
Snit
V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>
> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a connection
between such perversion and Mac use.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> >
> > Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a connection
> between such perversion and Mac use.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [ ] Misinterpretation
17 [ ] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thread hijacking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a troll has issues with a specific person (or several), the troll
will be inclined to bring up this issue whenever it is humanly
possible, even if it means to enter a totally unrelated thread to post
a lengthy post about why poster X is stupid as a reply to something
that had nothing to do with X at all. A very good example of that is
in this post [1] where Michael hijacks a thread just because the
concept of sex was mentioned and that gave him the opportunity to once
again mentioned a totally unrelated sex-based issue he is having with
Steve Carroll.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b4775197aa7
0e598>
14. Having an agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll always have an agenda, a goal or a motive. Something that
drives the troll. This is very apparent when the troll hijacks threads
[1] or when he is creating antagonizing threads [2].
Without the agenda, the troll has no purpose. The Agenda is not
static, however, and evolves along the way when the troll finds new
objective, enemies or issues to incorporate into the Agenda.
1:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91362>
2:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91358>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Warren Oates
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
Excellent.
--
W. Oates
Snit
mr-406FF5.15...@News.Individual.NET on 2/16/08 7:44 AM:
> In article <C3DC40A9.A8AF4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>>
>>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>>
>> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
>> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
>> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
>> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a connection
>> between such perversion and Mac use.
>
> 6 [X] Thread hijacking
> 14 [X] Having an agenda
Yes, you are doing those things. I responded on topic to Zara's post. You
spewed tons of unrelated gibberish - which I snipped.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Rick
(snip)
> Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
(snip)
So, are you going to let others use your criteria checklist :-)
--
Rick
Rick
> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>
> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
So, just how sick and deranged are you?
--
Rick
Snit
on 2/16/08 8:25 AM:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:44:58 +0100, Sandman wrote:
At one time Sandman had agreed to be honest and honorable... and for the
most part I think he has been. He made a mistake... I am willing to let it
go. I think people obsess over others mistakes too much in CSMA.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Sandman
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> >>>
> >>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
> >>
> >> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was
> >> so
> >> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
> >> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
> >> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a
> >> connection
> >> between such perversion and Mac use.
> >
> > 6 [X] Thread hijacking
> > 14 [X] Having an agenda
>
> Yes, you are doing those things. I responded on topic to Zara's post. You
> spewed tons of unrelated gibberish - which I snipped.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [X] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [X] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [X] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [X] Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Obfuscation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a trolls main weapon. Most trolls are not very good debaters
or have very good or compelling arguments, so it's of outmost
importance that they are well versed in obfuscation instead. This is
mainly noticeable when their "opponents" say something that has even
the slightest chance to be misinterpreted. So even if this
misinterpretation is the most far fetched on can think of, it's
naturally the only valid way it could possibly be interpreted
according to the troll. A fine example of this is in one of Steve
Carrolls posts which was a reply to CSMA_Moderator (a periodic poster
that posts quotes that point out the number of people that has said
unfavorable things about Michael Glasser. Steve Carroll posted this
reply [1] to the original post and quite clearly only quoted one quote
and stated that he was the author of that quote. It is noteworthy that
he directs his comment to Snit, which is due to the fact that somehow
Snit wants to claim that Steve is the one who is posting as
CSMA_Moderator and Steve just plays the same card back.
Snit, being a troll, responds [2] by interpreting Steves reply as an
admittance that he is not the author of the quote he quoted, he is the
author of the entire post that was posted under the name
CSMA_Moderator. You can't get much far fetched than that.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9f843713b31
751a1>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fbee674dfde
048da>
7. Projection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire essays could be written on this particular criteria. Suffice it
to say, that a troll is often eager to project his own shortcomings
upon others so his own will be less obvious. For instance, a troll is
often found accusing its "opponents" of the things he himself is being
accused of, often using the same phrasing. A good example of this is
Michael Glassers "Snit Circus", a term coined by Sandman [1]İto
describe the never ending loop of Snit trolling most threads Michael
Glasser joins end up in. Michael himself has since then tried to label
his opponents posts as a circus, calling them troll and picking up
current phrases used to describe him. The troll does this so that a
casual reader who isn't informed will see these labels in reference to
not only the trolls actions, but also his opponents actions.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c374e5a389
1fa0b>
12. Role Reversal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Role Reversal, in short, means that the troll interpretes what was
written to be about the writer, not the troll.
A good example of this is where Snit interpretes a post [1] from
Sandman to be about Sandman and not about Snit.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/20d1fa468b8
5bec8>
13. Lying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obfuscating is the act of twisting words and meanings around so they
mean something else than what they were intended for. Lying is making
false statements. Both are untrue, but they differ in execution.
A troll often has no option other than to lie in order to further his
agenda. Especially when he's lost all arguments.
A good example of this is when Edwin quoted Sandman saying something
[1], using quotation marks. Problem was, that this wasn't something
Sandman had ever said. Or when Michael listed five outright lies about
Sandman [2].
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcdac1dd28f
153bf>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c410d8e2a3d
60683>
14. Having an agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll always have an agenda, a goal or a motive. Something that
drives the troll. This is very apparent when the troll hijacks threads
[1] or when he is creating antagonizing threads [2].
Without the agenda, the troll has no purpose. The Agenda is not
static, however, and evolves along the way when the troll finds new
objective, enemies or issues to incorporate into the Agenda.
1:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91362>
2:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91358>
16. Misinterpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the act of wilfully "misinterprete" someone else. Poster A may
say something like "People like you are a disgrace to mankind", and
poster B may respond with "So you think that honest people is a
disgrace to mankind?" even though it is perfectly obvious that poster
A did not mean that, since the implication was not that poster B was
honest, but something that would be a disgrace to mankind.
17. Creative snipping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Snipping out large chunks of unrelated material isn't really a troll
trademark, but doing a little "creative snipping" is, such as
something like this:
Poster A:
You're stupid
Poster B:
> You're stupid
Yeah, because you're such a genius, doofus. Duh!
Poster A:
>> You're stupid
> Yeah
Glad you agree!
I.e. snipping to change the meaning of the posters post.
zara
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-406FF5.15...@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <C3DC40A9.A8AF4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> > in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>> >
>> > Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>>
>> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was
>> so
>> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
>> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
>> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a
>> connection
>> between such perversion and Mac use.
>
> Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
Snipped the NEBS.
But you did get a huge complement from Warren "the passive voice should
never be used" Oates"
You must be ecstatic, he's one of the biggest mac Shitheads on this group.
How many small animals do you think he has maimed, tortured and killed?
My advice to you; Best not to identify with him.
zara
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:13re052...@news.supernews.com...
At the moment, not at all. But if you push the right buttons, you just
might find out.
Snit
> Michael Glassers "Snit Circus", a term coined by Sandman [1]Ýto
Sandman: I thought you were over this type of BS. What is wrong? I am not
sure what you hope to accomplish by this trolling of yours... seriously, I
am surprised. If you feel the need to get the last word in you can but I
shall not respond if you just post your trolling list of BS as you did
above. Very much out of character for you to troll like this - at least
recently.
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Warren Oates
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
> At the moment, not at all. But if you push the right buttons, you just
> might find out.
Oooh.
--
W. Oates
Mr. Strat
<johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>
> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
You tell us...you're the resident rump ranger.
Warren Oates
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
> But you did get a huge complement from Warren "the passive voice should
> never be used" Oates"
>
> You must be ecstatic, he's one of the biggest mac Shitheads on this group.
> How many small animals do you think he has maimed, tortured and killed?
>
> My advice to you; Best not to identify with him.
Gee, you're really obsessed with me, aren't you, finocchio?
Your buttons are so easy to push, gustafave, that it's hardly worth the
effort.
--
W. Oates
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Sandman: I thought you were over this type of BS.
Trust me... no one is buying your feigned indignity.
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Steve Carroll
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
The best part of all this troll business is that Snit was the one who
prompted Sandman to create these things in another failed attempt by
Snit to make himself look like everyone else;)
Chance Furlong
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is obvious zara is super lonely due to his Steve Ballmer doll leaving
him. Even his hand has rejected him.
zara
"Chance Furlong" <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:t-bone-C976B5....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
You and Warren can go head to toe.
zara
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:160220080832187217%r...@nospam.techline.com...
So you want someone to ride your rump?
I'm sure Warren will oblige.
zara
"Warren Oates" <warren...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fp72tm$msu$2...@news.mixmin.net...
Did you hit your G spot with the dildo you shove up your ass?
Snit
47b745af$0$1105$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 2/16/08 1:21 PM:
> On 2008-02-16 09:04:49 -0500, "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> said:
>
>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>
>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
>
> What the hell are you talking about you fuck knuckle?
>
He is talking about what someone coming to CSMA would think of Mac users if
they just glanced into the forum for a bit... people accusing others of
being pedophiles, people posting repulsive pro-pedophilia materials, people
accusing others of being the one who "really" posted that repulsive material
(and subsequently admitting they were merely fabricating the story but see
nothing wrong in their actions!), and in the past people claiming - with
apparently sincerity - that they think sex and incest are "identical" or
"synonymous".
All of those things have no place in a public forum about computers... and
all of the people who partook in such BS should be ashamed of themselves.
If those of us who find such BS to be inappropriate would call the people
out on their BS as it happens we might - might - be able to change it...
though not if their full goal is just to get attention.
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
nospamatall
> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>
> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
>
That's why you're attracted is it Zara?
nospamatall
> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
>
>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>
>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a connection
> between such perversion and Mac use.
>
do with csms Asking you cos theres no point in asking zara.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "A. Nalorafice" <A...@backdoor.net> stated in post
> 47b745af$0$1105$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 2/16/08 1:21 PM:
>
> > On 2008-02-16 09:04:49 -0500, "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> said:
> >
> >> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> >>
> >> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
> >
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about you fuck knuckle?
> >
> He is talking about what someone coming to CSMA would think of Mac users if
> they just glanced into the forum for a bit
So, like you believe for yourself, you also believe zara knows what
other people "think" about Mac users?
> people accusing others of
> being pedophiles, people posting repulsive pro-pedophilia materials, people
> accusing others of being the one who "really" posted that repulsive material
Perhaps if you hadn't used so many sock puppets and pulled the kind of
crap you've pulled in csma people wouldn't think you'd sink low enough
to post such material... just a thought.
> All of those things have no place in a public forum about computers...
And sock puppets do? Or ID forging? Or sexual harassment? Or any of the
many other trolling tactics you've used, Mr. Hypocrite?
Steve Carroll
> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
>
> > in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> >
> > Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous.
Uh... incest *is* a form of sex, Snit... one that you wouldn't disallow:
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest".
<chq396$n...@odak26.prod.google.com>
My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
and
"I am torn on the incest question".
<chq511$q...@odak26.prod.google.com>
Obviously, you're torn, anyone reading the crap you spewed when you made
your statements can see that. Now go ahead and pretend you didn't write
these things... again.
nospamatall
> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>
> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
>
Homey
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Snit
fp6tjv$cqd$7...@news.mixmin.net on 2/16/08 7:57 AM:
> In article <mr-406FF5.15...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
>
> Excellent.
Except it is not my list... Sandman made that list long ago when he used to
troll me. He has not been doing so for a long time - he is having a bad day
or something and, frankly, I am surprised to see him jump back to his old
habits.
I certainly shan't hold it against him... too out of character for how he
has been for a long time... we all make mistakes...
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
zara
"nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:fp7ki0$k06$3...@aioe.org...
There are fish in csms who will bite. WarrenFish is a csms denizen.
zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
news:trollkiller-2509...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <C3DC9AD6.A8BD0%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "A. Nalorafice" <A...@backdoor.net> stated in post
>> 47b745af$0$1105$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 2/16/08 1:21 PM:
>>
>> > On 2008-02-16 09:04:49 -0500, "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> said:
>> >
>> >> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>> >>
>> >> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>> >
>> >
>> > What the hell are you talking about you fuck knuckle?
>> >
>> He is talking about what someone coming to CSMA would think of Mac users
>> if
>> they just glanced into the forum for a bit
>
> So, like you believe for yourself, you also believe zara knows what
> other people "think" about Mac users?
If I knew, I wouldn't have posed the question.
>snip the NEBS
zara
zara
"Homey" <ho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47b77417$0$15185$607e...@cv.net...
> Oddly enough Jimmy Lee didn't respond ?
He did. He uses the name of Chance Furtongue.
>snip
Snit
Well, then, I spelled it out for you. Now you know. :)
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolutionary had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Tim Smith
>
> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
Are you alleging that Mac users tend toward being Republicans and/or
Catholics?
--
--Tim Smith
Chance Furlong
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
"Chance Furtongue?" Dream on, zara, dream on.
Turning into a toonophile? Have the hots for T-Bone?
Who would have thought?
Chance Furlong
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
Jealous of Warren?
zara
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C3DCD0DB.A8C99%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> pXKtj.74857$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 5:10 PM:
>
>>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
>> news:trollkiller-2509...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>> In article <C3DC9AD6.A8BD0%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A. Nalorafice" <A...@backdoor.net> stated in post
>>>> 47b745af$0$1105$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 2/16/08 1:21 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-02-16 09:04:49 -0500, "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What the hell are you talking about you fuck knuckle?
>>>>>
>>>> He is talking about what someone coming to CSMA would think of Mac
>>>> users
>>>> if
>>>> they just glanced into the forum for a bit
>>>
>>> So, like you believe for yourself, you also believe zara knows what
>>> other people "think" about Mac users?
>>
>>
>> If I knew, I wouldn't have posed the question.
>
> Well, then, I spelled it out for you. Now you know. :)
Knowledge is a great thing. Thank you.
Snit
My pleasure.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Snit
gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 6:12 PM:
> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
>
> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex? Or are you equating
> sex with procreation?
>
> Not at all the same thing.
Bingo!
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Steve Carroll
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm aware of that... but Snit obviously believes you know. Being
overmedicated like he is will do that to a person.
Steve Carroll
Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> > My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
>
> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 6:12 PM:
>
> > In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> >> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
> >
> > Er... there are genetic problems from having sex? Or are you equating
> > sex with procreation?
> >
> > Not at all the same thing.
>
> Bingo!
He proves he reads about as well as you do and that's all you can say?
LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Warren Oates" <warren...@gmail.com> stated in post
> fp6tjv$cqd$7...@news.mixmin.net on 2/16/08 7:57 AM:
>
> > In article <mr-406FF5.15...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
> >
> > Excellent.
>
> Except it is not my list...
Sure it is... it's your list from the viewpoint that is was you who
asked him to create a list of trolling criteria. That you more often met
the criteria than any other poster to ever post to csma is the only
reason you are trying to distance yourself from it. Reasonable people
who are honest and honorable have no problem looking at a list of
trolling criteria like this one and realizing how accurate and
appropriate it is for trolls like you.
(snip total crap by Snit)
Snit
> In article <trollkiller-4DCE...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
>> Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
>>>
>>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
>>
>> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
>
> Sex != procreation
>
> At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
> sexual acts.
Should be fun to see how long it takes for Steve to get your amazingly
simple point. Keep replying to him. :)
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
zara
"Chance Furlong" <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:t-bone-DF841E....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
God no!!!
zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
> Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>> > My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
>>
>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
>
> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
Steve - will you clearly state your position on incestuous sex vs. sex or
whatever?
I will read it and make my proclamation.
zara
"Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> In article <pXKtj.74857$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
>> news:trollkiller-2509...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> > In article <C3DC9AD6.A8BD0%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "A. Nalorafice" <A...@backdoor.net> stated in post
>> >> 47b745af$0$1105$4c36...@roadrunner.com on 2/16/08 1:21 PM:
>> >>
>> >> > On 2008-02-16 09:04:49 -0500, "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> said:
>> >> >
>> >> >> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What the hell are you talking about you fuck knuckle?
>> >> >
>> >> He is talking about what someone coming to CSMA would think of Mac
>> >> users
>> >> if
>> >> they just glanced into the forum for a bit
>> >
>> > So, like you believe for yourself, you also believe zara knows what
>> > other people "think" about Mac users?
>>
>>
>> If I knew, I wouldn't have posed the question.
>
> I'm aware of that... but Snit obviously believes you know. Being
> overmedicated like he is will do that to a person.
He knows that I know, that he knows that I know.
Snit
2/16/08 2:28 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
>> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
>>
>>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>>
>>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>>
>> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
>> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
>> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
>> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a connection
>> between such perversion and Mac use.
>>
> Snit could you at least trim csms from the headers? This has nothing to
> do with csms Asking you cos theres no point in asking zara.
No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
and the like would just not be in CSMA at all. Talk of sex is not even on
topic, but at least most people know that sex is not "identical" or
"synonymous" with those perversions.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Snit
I will answer for myself:
The two are not the same. They are not identical. They are not synonymous.
Incest is a subset of sex, one I do not approve of in any way, shape or form
(at least among humans... not so concerned about other animals!)
Sadly Carroll and some of his friends would argue with me even about the
above... sickening.
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Snit
I know, but Steve does not know what I know nor what I know you know nor
what I now know but did not know before, well, you know!
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
> In article <C3DCEC87.A8D11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
>> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all. Talk of sex is not even on
>> topic, but at least most people know that sex is not "identical" or
>> "synonymous" with those perversions.
>
> Personally I don't think anything done between consenting adults is
> perverse.
>
> Key words are 'consenting' and 'adults', for the slower members of the
> tribe (perhaps those results of incestuous forebears?).
Generally incest is not between consenting adults - but if two of-age
siblings want to engage in sex they better be darn sure they are not risking
procreating... which if they are not fertile or of the same sex is pretty
easy to guarantee. :)
Still, incest and sex are not the same thing, are not identical, are not
synonymous, or any other semantic word game terms those who have supported
that idea have used.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Tim Adams
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post fp7ki0$k06$3...@aioe.org on
> 2/16/08 2:28 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> >> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
> >>
> >>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> >>>
> >>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
> >>
> >> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was
> >> so
> >> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
> >> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
> >> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a
> >> connection
> >> between such perversion and Mac use.
> >>
> > Snit could you at least trim csms from the headers? This has nothing to
> > do with csms Asking you cos theres no point in asking zara.
>
> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
> Talk of sex is not even on
> topic, but at least most people know that sex is not "identical" or
> "synonymous" with those perversions.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Jamie Kahn Genet
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:13re052...@news.supernews.com...
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:04:49 -0500, zara wrote:
> >
> >> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> >>
> >> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
> >
> > So, just how sick and deranged are you?
>
>
> At the moment, not at all. But if you push the right buttons, you just
> might find out.
*frantically stabs at buttons* :-D
--
"The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe
is that it has never tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes (Bill
Watterson)
Steve Carroll
"zara" <johnn...@aol.com> wrote:
I believe you just did;)
Steve Carroll
Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <trollkiller-4DCE...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
> > Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> > > > My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
> > >
> > > Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
> >
> > Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
>
> Sex != procreation
>
> At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
> sexual acts.
Put back the content (and context) that you snipped and try again. Maybe
that way you won't be so confused. LOL!
Here... lemme help you... you seem sort of feeble;)
--
Uh... incest *is* a form of sex, Snit... one that you wouldn't disallow:
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest".
<chq396$n...@odak26.prod.google.com>
My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
--
Suggestion: DON'T have Snit explain it to you. LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gkreme-09F252....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 7:26 PM:
>
> > In article <trollkiller-4DCE...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
> >> Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> >>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> >>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
> >>>
> >>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
> >>
> >> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
> >
> > Sex != procreation
> >
> > At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
> > sexual acts.
>
> Should be fun to see how long it takes for Steve to get your amazingly
> simple point. Keep replying to him. :)
I understood right away that his reading comprehension is no better than
yours. It didn't help that he snipped away the context he was confused
by.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> H4Ntj.73377$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:36 PM:
>
> >
> > "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> wrote in message
> > news:trollkiller-4DCE...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> >> In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
> >> Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> >>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> >>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
> >>>
> >>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
> >>
> >> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
> >
> > Steve - will you clearly state your position on incestuous sex vs. sex or
> > whatever?
> >
> > I will read it and make my proclamation.
>
> I will answer for myself:
>
> The two are not the same. They are not identical. They are not synonymous.
>
> Incest is a subset of sex, one I do not approve of in any way, shape or form
How can you say you don't approve of it while simultaneously allowing it?
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest". - Snit
Hint: If you don't "disallow" an act by legal means you are allowing it.
> (at least among humans... not so concerned about other animals!)
I see. So you're now claiming that you only meant it's OK for animals
but not humans? Is that your new position? Do I need to go get the
little scenario you dreamed that used human siblings? You know... the
one that had you finally asking me to give a "logical" reason?
"OK, Steve: list the *logical* reason to disallow two senior citizen
siblings from getting married".
<C0294A50.46D29%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Were these two old dog citizens you were talking about, Snit? Two old
mice citizens? Will that be your claim? Are you ready to stop now, Mr.
Totally Delusional Loon?
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-3B3D34.23...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
2/16/08 9:04 PM:
> In article <C3DCEC87.A8D11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post fp7ki0$k06$3...@aioe.org on
>> 2/16/08 2:28 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
>>>> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>>>>
>>>> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
>>>> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
>>>> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
>>>> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a
>>>> connection between such perversion and Mac use.
>>>>
>>> Snit could you at least trim csms from the headers? This has nothing to do
>>> with csms Asking you cos theres no point in asking zara.
>>>
>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
>> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
>>
> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
>
Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up. Can you point to
any post where I have done as you say? The only thing I can think of that
even comes close was from *years* ago where I used to have a response to
some perverts in my .sig... which I decided later was not a good idea.
>> Talk of sex is not even on topic, but at least most people know that sex is
>> not "identical" or "synonymous" with those perversions.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-3B3D34.23...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <C3DCEC87.A8D11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post fp7ki0$k06$3...@aioe.org on
> > 2/16/08 2:28 PM:
> >
> > > Snit wrote:
> > >> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> > >> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
> > >>
> > >>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
> > >>
> > >> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was
> > >> so
> > >> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous. I must say I
> > >> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
> > >> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a
> > >> connection
> > >> between such perversion and Mac use.
> > >>
> > > Snit could you at least trim csms from the headers? This has nothing to
> > > do with csms Asking you cos theres no point in asking zara.
> >
> > No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
> > and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
>
> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
No shit! Snit has initiated more references to incest than any 20
posters combined. On top of that he claims to have two small children...
I hope they aren't in any danger. Maybe he was molested by a family
member? If so, it actually explains quite a few things regarding his
behavior and the kinds of stuff he's posted.
Steve Carroll
Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <C3DCEC87.A8D11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
> > and the like would just not be in CSMA at all. Talk of sex is not even on
> > topic, but at least most people know that sex is not "identical" or
> > "synonymous" with those perversions.
>
> Personally I don't think anything done between consenting adults is
> perverse.
>
> Key words are 'consenting' and 'adults', for the slower members of the
> tribe (perhaps those results of incestuous forebears?).
It figures... another Snit sock puppet rears its ugly head. One plays
stupid, bad cop and Snit will be along soon to play smart, good cop.
Snit... you *really* suck at this.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gkreme-2D93A5....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 7:49 PM:
>
> > In article <C3DCEC87.A8D11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
> >> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all. Talk of sex is not even on
> >> topic, but at least most people know that sex is not "identical" or
> >> "synonymous" with those perversions.
> >
> > Personally I don't think anything done between consenting adults is
> > perverse.
> >
> > Key words are 'consenting' and 'adults', for the slower members of the
> > tribe (perhaps those results of incestuous forebears?).
>
> Generally
...your sock puppets are pretty easy to spot? Yes, they are.
Steve Carroll
Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <trollkiller-930B...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C3DCE9FC.A8D06%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
> > > gkreme-09F252....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 7:26 PM:
> > >
> > > > In article <trollkiller-4DCE...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
> > > >> Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> In article <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > >>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
> > > >>
> > > >> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
> > > >
> > > > Sex != procreation
> > > >
> > > > At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
> > > > sexual acts.
> > >
> > > Should be fun to see how long it takes for Steve to get your amazingly
> > > simple point. Keep replying to him. :)
>
> He's denser than a fence post
Coming from you that's a compliment.
> , but then again, zara's on the other side,
> right? Six of one...
>
> > I understood right away that his reading comprehension is no better than
> > yours. It didn't help that he snipped away the context he was confused
> > by.
>
> You are misinformed. I was not in any way confused.
You were obviously confused.
> You equated sex
> with procreation when you claimed that incestuous SEX had "associated
> genetic problems".
I'll explain this to you in a manner that will probably take you a
couple of dozen years to understand...
1 - If I wasn't taking the conversation to the level of procreation then
genetics wouldn't have entered the discussion.
Hint: Genetics entered the discussion when I mentioned it as a
"*logical*" reason to "disallow" incest.
2 - You asked an irrelevant question regarding if there were genetic
problems from having sex:
"Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?"
3 - I was clearly referring to genetic problems that can be specifically
attributed to incestuous sex (hint... that meant procreation).
Conclusion: Your idiotic non sequitur proves you were unable to follow
the context that I laid out.
Hint: DON'T get Snit to try and explain any of this to you;)
> That said, I don't know how much research has actually been done on the
> genetic issues involved.
There are obviously a lot of things you don't know... as evidenced your
bizarre suggestion that people who engage in incest won't ever procreate.
Snit
...
>>>>>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
>>>>
>>>> Sex != procreation
>>>>
>>>> At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
>>>> sexual acts.
>>>
>>> Should be fun to see how long it takes for Steve to get your amazingly
>>> simple point. Keep replying to him. :)
>
> He's denser than a fence post, but then again, zara's on the other side,
> right? Six of one...
Steve will make *any* claim to disagree with me... he is, literally,
obsessed. Read *any* post of his... *ANY*. He will comment in some
derogatory way about me... and I can say that with confidence even though I
have been reading only a few of his posts over the last few months.
>> I understood right away that his reading comprehension is no better than
>> yours. It didn't help that he snipped away the context he was confused
>> by.
>
> You are misinformed. I was not in any way confused. You equated sex
> with procreation when you claimed that incestuous SEX had "associated
> genetic problems".
It *can*, but to make a blanket statement that it *does*, no, that is silly.
> That said, I don't know how much research has actually been done on the
> genetic issues involved. Certainly over the course of generations, too
> much inbreeding is an issue, but I guarantee you that everyone reading
> this forum has, in the last 200 or so years, first cousin couples in
> their family trees.
The risk, from what I understand, is not that great... the greater risk of
not having a taboo against incest is that it likely will lead to more abuse
between parents and their children - though I have not seen that proved,
either.
> How much risk is there in a child whose parents are siblings?
> Half-siblings? I dunno, I doubt it's been looked at very much, so I
> doubt anything useful can be said about it.
Maybe Carroll knows more about this than either of us?
> There have been studies done of the royal families in Europe, which is
> how we know that long-term multi-generational inbreeding causes genetic
> issues. But these issues are, for example, much faster to appear and
> more serious in dog breeding. The complexity of the baseline DNA seems
> to forestal these in-breeding issues. On the other side of the coin,
> very simple DNA profiles also don't seem to be much at risk, since they
> have so little genetic drift between individuals.
>
> Cleopatra was, as I recall, the daughter of siblings. She was neither
> stupid, feeble, nor infertile and as far as I know, didn't exhibit any
> genetic problems.
>
> The fact that there is a very strong incest-avoidance tendency in people
> (and in animals as well) is indisputable, however.
Likely reduces abuse... if nothing else.
> I know it's futile to inject any sort of sensible discourse into this
> flamefest, as it's not the actual topic that you all are fighting over;
Actually I made similar claims a long time ago and noted that there might
not be much of a *logical* reason to disallow incest in many cases... but
Carroll and others misconstrued that to make it seem like I approved of it.
Of course, he is the one who also defended that whackos who claimed that
incest was "identical" or "synonymous" with sex... when, clearly, incest is
only a very small subset of sexual acts or events (even if the *act* is the
same the concept is not).
> it's backbiting, name-calling, denigration, and just basic schoolyard
> insults. Still, I'm new to this particular fight, I can tilt a couple
> of windmills.
Carry on... good to see someone with some sense. Be prepared to be attacked
by the whackos. :)
--
Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?
Tim Adams
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed bring it up!
> Can you point to any post where I have done as you say?
I see you've already forgotten your earlier post in this thread. Just what drugs
are you taking anyway?
~babbling snipped
Snit
2/17/08 6:05 AM:
>>>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest,
>>>> bestiality,
>>>> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
>>>>
>>> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
>>>
>> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
>
> BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed bring it up!
LOL! Ah, so responding to a topic is, in your book, bringing the topic up!
Your desperation to troll me is always something that amazes me - you will
say the most stupid of things just to get my attention.
>
>> Can you point to any post where I have done as you say?
>
> I see you've already forgotten your earlier post in this thread. Just what
> drugs are you taking anyway?
Ah, now you think I brought up the topic of sexual deviancy in this
thread... did you by any chance read the subject line?
Oh, that is right - you think my responding to the topic *is* bringing it
up. LOL!
Keep posting, Tim, you are an amusing one!
--
BU__SH__
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C6A4E9.08...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 2/17/08 6:05 AM:
>
> >>>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest,
> >>>> bestiality,
> >>>> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
> >>>>
> >>> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
> >>>
> >> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
> >
> > BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed bring it up!
>
> LOL! Ah, so responding to a topic is, in your book, bringing the topic up!
Reality shows that zara began the thread with the following:
"in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
Is that part of the "mac experience"?"
<V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
To which you replied:
"A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest..."
<C3DC40A9.A8AF4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Fact: You brought up the topic of incest... in the 2nd post written to
this thread.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gkreme-474D01....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 10:49 PM:
>
> ...
> >>>>>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sex != procreation
> >>>>
> >>>> At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
> >>>> sexual acts.
> >>>
> >>> Should be fun to see how long it takes for Steve to get your amazingly
> >>> simple point. Keep replying to him. :)
> >
> > He's denser than a fence post, but then again, zara's on the other side,
> > right? Six of one...
>
> Steve will
... attempt to confront you with actual reality you will deny? That's
true.
> >> I understood right away that his reading comprehension is no better than
> >> yours. It didn't help that he snipped away the context he was confused
> >> by.
> >
> > You are misinformed. I was not in any way confused. You equated sex
> > with procreation when you claimed that incestuous SEX had "associated
> > genetic problems".
>
> It *can*, but to make a blanket statement that it *does*, no, that is silly.
Reality shows that no one made any sort of statement like that... which
is why you are bringing it up.
> Maybe Carroll knows more about this than either of us?
Undoubtedly.
> > There have been studies done of the royal families in Europe, which is
> > how we know that long-term multi-generational inbreeding causes genetic
> > issues. But these issues are, for example, much faster to appear and
> > more serious in dog breeding. The complexity of the baseline DNA seems
> > to forestal these in-breeding issues. On the other side of the coin,
> > very simple DNA profiles also don't seem to be much at risk, since they
> > have so little genetic drift between individuals.
> >
> > Cleopatra was, as I recall, the daughter of siblings. She was neither
> > stupid, feeble, nor infertile and as far as I know, didn't exhibit any
> > genetic problems.
Oh well that settles it, then... based on the "fact" that it can be
unequivocally proven that Cleopatra was just fine and dandy, huh?
> Actually I made similar claims a long time ago and noted that there might
> not be much of a *logical* reason to disallow incest in many cases...
Yes, you're as clueless as your sock puppet...uh, Lewis is.
> but
> Carroll and others misconstrued that to make it seem like I approved of it.
You're lying, I didn't say you approved of it... in fact, I even
recently quoted the text where you *claimed* not to again (but hey...
why let reality get in your way and spoil your perfect record):
<trollkiller-FB23...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
See how easy your lies are to prove? For all I know you do approve of
it; you lie about most everything else... so no reason to believe you.
zara
"Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gkreme-474D01....@news.giganews.com...
> In article <trollkiller-930B...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <C3DCE9FC.A8D06%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> > gkreme-09F252....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 7:26 PM:
>> >
>> > > In article
>> > > <trollkiller-4DCE...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>> > > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> In article <gkreme-A39768....@news.giganews.com>,
>> > >> Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> In article
>> > >>> <trollkiller-9E4E...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>> > >>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>> > >>>> My take: The associated genetic problems provide a logical reason.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Er... there are genetic problems from having sex?
>> > >>
>> > >> Not sex... incestuous sex. Being reading long?
>> > >
>> > > Sex != procreation
>> > >
>> > > At least not for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of
>> > > sexual acts.
>> >
>> > Should be fun to see how long it takes for Steve to get your amazingly
>> > simple point. Keep replying to him. :)
>
> right? Six of one...
>
>> yours. It didn't help that he snipped away the context he was confused
>> by.
>
> with procreation when you claimed that incestuous SEX had "associated
> genetic problems".
>
> genetic issues involved. Certainly over the course of generations, too
> much inbreeding is an issue, but I guarantee you that everyone reading
> this forum has, in the last 200 or so years, first cousin couples in
> their family trees.
>
> Half-siblings? I dunno, I doubt it's been looked at very much, so I
> doubt anything useful can be said about it.
>
> how we know that long-term multi-generational inbreeding causes genetic
> issues. But these issues are, for example, much faster to appear and
> more serious in dog breeding. The complexity of the baseline DNA seems
> to forestal these in-breeding issues. On the other side of the coin,
> very simple DNA profiles also don't seem to be much at risk, since they
> have so little genetic drift between individuals.
>
> Cleopatra was, as I recall, the daughter of siblings. She was neither
> stupid, feeble, nor infertile and as far as I know, didn't exhibit any
> genetic problems.
>
> (and in animals as well) is indisputable, however.
>
> flamefest, as it's not the actual topic that you all are fighting over;
> insults. Still, I'm new to this particular fight, I can tilt a couple
> of windmills.
If your comments were sensible, it wouldn't be futile. Since they're
not................
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C6A4E9.08...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 2/17/08 6:05 AM:
>
> >>>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest,
> >>>> bestiality,
> >>>> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
> >>>>
> >>> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
> >>>
> >> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
> >
> > BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed bring it up!
>
> LOL! Ah, so responding to a topic is, in your book, bringing the topic up!
You can now point out where the topic mentions incest. Oh wait it doesn't.
~babbling by the trolling idiot michael glasser, aka snit snipped
Snit
2/17/08 1:08 PM:
> In article <C3DD9636.A8E40%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-C6A4E9.08...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
>> 2/17/08 6:05 AM:
>>
>>>>>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest,
>>>>>> bestiality, and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
>>>>>
>>>> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
>>>>
>>> BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed bring it up!
>>>
>> LOL! Ah, so responding to a topic is, in your book, bringing the topic up!
>
> You can now point out where the topic mentions incest. Oh wait it doesn't.
We can, of course, change the topic to that, but I prefer to rub your face
in your BS, first:
Snit:
Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
Tim Adams:
BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed
bring it up!
Read what you wrote, Tim, and then have a good laugh at how absurd your
words are. LOL! You did not even know what was meant by bringing up a
topic.
Now to your question... returnign what you snipped:
-----
Ah, now you think I brought up the topic of sexual deviancy
in this thread... did you by any chance read the subject
line?
Oh, that is right - you think my responding to the topic *is*
bringing it up. LOL!
Keep posting, Tim, you are an amusing one!
-----
That's right! You snipped the answer to your question... LOL! Sure, I
talked *on* the topic of sexual deviancies and you freaked out and claimed I
brought the topic up. Then again, Tim, you are the one that claimed sex and
incest are, to you, "identical"... no wonder you are lashing out at my
comments about how perverts such as yourself are dispicable:
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! You were lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
On and on... you are a pervert... and I made you mad by talking about how
your perverse ideas have no place in CSMA.
--
BU__SH__
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-8233BE.15...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 2/17/08 1:08 PM:
>
> > In article <C3DD9636.A8E40%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-C6A4E9.08...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> >> 2/17/08 6:05 AM:
> >>
> >>>>>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest,
> >>>>>> bestiality, and the like would just not be in CSMA at all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Then why do you continue to bring it up in your posts?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
> >>>>
> >>> BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed bring it
> >>> up!
> >>>
> >> LOL! Ah, so responding to a topic is, in your book, bringing the topic
> >> up!
> >
> > You can now point out where the topic mentions incest. Oh wait it doesn't.
>
> We can, of course, change the topic to that, but I prefer to rub your face
> in your BS, first:
>
> Snit:
> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
Yet your response was about incest which was NOT the topic so you did indeed
bring it up. See how reality works YET michael?
~more babbling by the trolling idiot michael glasser snipped
Snit
2/17/08 4:27 PM:
>> Snit:
>> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
>>
>> Tim Adams:
>> BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed
>> bring it up!
>>
>> Read what you wrote, Tim, and then have a good laugh at how absurd your words
>> are. LOL! You did not even know what was meant by bringing up a topic.
> Yet your response was about incest which was NOT the topic so you did indeed
> bring it up. See how reality works YET michael?
Funny how you keep snipping your own words, Tim. At least you show you are
smart enough to be embarrassed by them... even you can see how absurd your
comments were.
Don't worry: Carroll will jump in to support you. 100% predictable.
Really.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-7B4D4C.18...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 2/17/08 4:27 PM:
>
>
> >> Snit:
> >> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
> >>
> >> Tim Adams:
> >> BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed
> >> bring it up!
> >>
> >> Read what you wrote, Tim, and then have a good laugh at how absurd your
> >> words
> >> are. LOL! You did not even know what was meant by bringing up a topic.
>
> > Yet your response was about incest which was NOT the topic so you did
> > indeed
> > bring it up. See how reality works YET michael?
>
> Funny how
snit tries to run from reality. That being, he did indeed bring up the topic of
incest, yet claims "Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest,
bestiality, and the like would just not be in CSMA at all." proving once again
michael glasser is both an idiot and a hypocrite. keep running michael.
Wally
On 16/2/08 11:26 PM, in article C3DC40A9.A8AF4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "zara" <johnn...@aol.com> stated in post
> V3Ctj.98823$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/16/08 7:04 AM:
>
>> in the mac ranks? Lots of sexual deviants also.
>>
>> Is that part of the "mac experience"?
>
> A while back there were a number of folks in CSMA who claimed incest was so
> similar to sex in general as to be considered synonymous.
Actually Snit it was only *you* that claimed that there *had* to be a
similarity between incest and sex before incest and sex could be considered
synonymous!
Everyone else got it right!
> I must say I
> found that to be repulsive... and, I believe, those who were making that
> argument were all Mac users. I do not, however, think there is a connection
> between such perversion and Mac use.
I agree that Mac use is immaterial ... You for instance would still claim
that you had less of a legal problem with necrophilia if prior permission
had been obtained...
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that
they had no problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I
would have less *legal* problems with it."-Snit
Even though in law prior permission makes absolutely no difference to the
abhorrence of the act!
And yet to you it does! *that* is indeed repulsive Snit!
And no matter what computer you used you would still hold the same view wrt
incest!
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit
Ed made a very valid point when he said to you...
"because of it's very definition, to just about everyone incest is
synonymous with sex; to very few people is sex synonymous with incest."-ed
But that comment was responsible for an extremely telling response from you
Snit...
To ... "because of it's very definition, to just about everyone incest is
synonymous with sex;"
You responded with...
"That is absurd, dishonest, and perverted. "-Snit
And then to ...
"to very few people is sex synonymous with incest."
You responded with...
"This is true. It is also completely contradictory to your previous
statement."-Snit
There was absolutely nothing contradictory about what ed stated!
The truth is that you simply could not understand and probably still can't
understand how incest *is* synonymous with sex whereas sex need not be
considered synonymous with incest except for a very few (hopefully) people!
Wally
On 17/2/08 12:13 PM, in article C3DCF46E.A8D22%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gkreme-2D93A5....@news.giganews.com on 2/16/08 7:49 PM:
>
>> In article <C3DCEC87.A8D11%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> No problem. Frankly I wish all the talk of pedophilia, incest, bestiality,
>>> and the like would just not be in CSMA at all. Talk of sex is not even on
>>> topic, but at least most people know that sex is not "identical" or
>>> "synonymous" with those perversions.
>>
>> Personally I don't think anything done between consenting adults is
>> perverse.
>>
>> Key words are 'consenting' and 'adults', for the slower members of the
>> tribe (perhaps those results of incestuous forebears?).
>
> Generally incest is not between consenting adults - but if two of-age
> siblings want to engage in sex they better be darn sure they are not risking
> procreating... which if they are not fertile or of the same sex is pretty
> easy to guarantee. :)
>
> Still, incest and sex are not the same thing,
Which they do not need to be to be considered synonymous!
> are not identical,
Which they do not need to be to be considered synonymous!
> are not synonymous,
Incest is indeed synonymous with sex!
> or any other semantic word game terms those who have
> supported that idea have used.
What a disturbing thing for an alleged teacher to say, it's beyond belief
just how amazingly stupid not to mention ignorant you really are Snit!
You state...
"Generally incest is not between consenting adults"-Snit
Ask yourself this question Snit...
Consenting to what? LOL
Now if you ever stumble across the right answer you will have discovered why
incest is indeed synonymous with sex!
Or of course you could save yourself a lot of time and read a few
definitions of incest and then ask yourself a different question...how many
of those definitions do not mention sex! :-)
Snit
C3DF7ABB.1811D%Wa...@wally.world.net on 2/18/08 2:11 AM:
I am not looking re-hash your defense for your repulsive and perverted
claims:
> Sex and incest, Wally, are not synonymous
Quite right! exactly as I said, but incest and sex are!
incest and sex are synonymous
I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are synonymous!
Nor am I interested in your defense of your co-pervert Tim Adam's comments:
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! You were lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
You both are perverts. No amount of back pedaling on your parts can change
that.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
An incestuous relationship, Wally. Contrary to your claims incest is a
subset of sex, not synonymous with it:
> Sex and incest, Wally, are not synonymous
Quite right! exactly as I said, but incest and sex are!
incest and sex are synonymous
only *YOU* that has written that "sex and incest are synonymous
concepts."and attributed it to me! I on the other hand have maintained
that incest and sex are synonymous!
I am not going to re-hash a debate with you where you try to back pedal from
your perverted claims. You and Tim Adams both at least claimed, in a public
forum, to be perverts. I find it repulsive and inappropriate.
>
> Now if you ever stumble across the right answer you will have discovered why
> incest is indeed synonymous with sex!
Incest is a subset of sex - not the same thing, Wally. Your perversions are
offensive.
> Or of course you could save yourself a lot of time and read a few
> definitions of incest and then ask yourself a different question...how many
> of those definitions do not mention sex! :-)
We could talk about all sorts of irrelevant things, Wally: but your claims
of incest and sex being the same are repulsive to most people.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-7B4D4C.18...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net on
> 2/17/08 4:27 PM:
>
>
> >> Snit:
> >> Responding to something is not the same as bringing it up.
> >>
> >> Tim Adams:
> >> BULL SHIT. Unless somebody FORCED you to reply - you did indeed
> >> bring it up!
> >>
> >> Read what you wrote, Tim, and then have a good laugh at how absurd your
> >> words
> >> are. LOL! You did not even know what was meant by bringing up a topic.
>
> > Yet your response was about incest which was NOT the topic so you did
> > indeed
> > bring it up. See how reality works YET michael?
>
> Funny how you keep snipping your own words, Tim. At least you show you are
> smart enough to be embarrassed by them... even you can see how absurd your
> comments were.
>
> Don't worry: Carroll will jump in to support you. 100% predictable.
> Really.
"Actually"... reality jumped in to support him... I'm just the messenger
(and glad to be;)
Wally
On 19/2/08 12:37 AM, in article C3DEF45A.A913D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
What followed would make far more sense if you had attributed the quotes
Snit!
I'll help you out there!
"Sex and incest, Wally, are not synonymous"-Snit
"Quite right! exactly as I said, but incest and sex are!"-Wally
"incest and sex are synonymous"-Wally
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!"-Wally
Your welcome!
>
> Nor am I interested in your defense of your co-pervert Tim Adam's comments:
>
> "Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
Tim is quite correct!
> "Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
> prove it." - Tim Adams
Right again! Have you managed to find a definition of incest that does not
mention sex yet Snit?
> "incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
> FACT." - Tim Adams
Absolute truth!
> "I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
> incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
> otherwise." Tim Adams
> [Please note, you did no such thing! You were lying]
If Tim linked to an article once I am sure that he can do so again if it's
still available! ... Ask him!
> "Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Well there cannot be incest without sex so I see Tim's point!
> Therefore they ARE identical ..."- Tim Adams
Not exactly how I would have put it, but... Considering that a definition of
identical can be found that states...
" Uttering sameness or the same truth; expressing in the predicate what is
given, or obviously implied, in the subject; tautological.
When you say body is solid, I say that you make an identical proposition,
because it is impossible to have the idea of body without that of solidity.
Fleming."
In the same way it is impossible to talk of incest without an automatic
inclusion of sex!
So I certainly wouldn't say Tim was wrong!
> You both are perverts. No amount of back pedaling on your parts can change
> that.
What "parts" had you in mind?
Wally
On 19/2/08 12:41 AM, in article C3DEF549.A9149%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Which by it's very definition has to include ... what Snit?
What is it that has to have taken place in such a relationship?
What is it that when incest is claimed to have occurred has to have been
shown to have occurred to even justify using the term?
> Contrary to your claims incest is a
> subset of sex, not synonymous with it:
The very fact that you can state the above proves that even you see that
incest has to be synonymous with sex ... It simply cannot exist without it!
>>
>> Now if you ever stumble across the right answer you will have discovered why
>> incest is indeed synonymous with sex!
>
> Incest is a subset of sex - not the same thing, Wally. Your perversions are
> offensive.
I thought that you claimed to have some sort of teaching qualification
Snit.. And yet you don't understand that ..
Incest is a subset of sex, and incest is synonymous with sex need not be the
"same thing" for both statements to be true?
Clearly yet another example that shows that you simply are not what you
claim to be or if you do teach you do it at an extremely rudimentary level!
>> Or of course you could save yourself a lot of time and read a few
>> definitions of incest and then ask yourself a different question...how many
>> of those definitions do not mention sex! :-)
>
> We could talk about all sorts of irrelevant things, Wally: but your claims
> of incest and sex being the same are repulsive to most people.
You should have learnt by now that synonymous need not mean "the same" Snit!
Will you ever?
Snit
What part of "I am not looking re-hash your defense for your repulsive and
perverted claims" did you not understand?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
As I said in another post:
I am not looking re-hash your defense for your repulsive
and perverted claims
What part of that did you not understand?
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Snit
> In article <C3E0F32C.181D8%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
> Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>> The very fact that you can state the above proves that even you see that
>> incest has to be synonymous with sex ... It simply cannot exist without it!
>>
>
> Oranges are synonymous with trees? Rain is synonymous with clouds? Poker
> is synonymous with playing cards?
>
> You need to look up synonymous in the dictionary, I think.
I have pointed him to the definition many times... he simply does not get
it.
He will respond with the metaphoric usage with such examples as "Boston is
synonymous with marathons" and the like - as if that, somehow, was related
to his inability to understand the words he uses or somehow defended his
claim that sex and incest are synonymous.
In the end the facts will stay the same: a square is a rectangle but square
is not synonymous with rectangle. Of course we have played that game, too -
and he and Tim Adams will claim that since the word "is" can mean "equals
to" that since I say a square is a rectangle I must mean the two concepts
are the same... so Tim Adams spews such BS as:
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions clearly
prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
"I linked to an article by you that proved you indeed do believe
incest is synonymous with sex, no matter how many times you say
otherwise." Tim Adams
[Please note, you did no such thing! You were lying]
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Therefore they ARE identical ..."
- Tim Adams
On and on... and when I tell them they are spewing perverted claims Steve
Carroll jumps in to say I am engaging in sexual harassment... though he
cannot quote where or how. The three of them have played these games,
literally, for years.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Steve Carroll
In my opinion any honest and honorable person would agree to the
following definitions for the words involved here...
--
sex:
"to have sex, to engage in sexual intercourse"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex
incest:
"sexual intercourse between closely related persons"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incest
synonymous:
"meaning the same or nearly the same"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonymous
--
Given these definitions... is it inaccurate to state that incest and sex
are synonymous?
* We cannot say that incest and sex are "the same" because incest
differentiates the two based on the identification of the partners.
Notably, that is the sole difference.
* The term "sexual intercourse" (the act itself) is "the same thing"
(the same "act") in both incestuous sexual intercourse and
non-incestuous sexual intercourse.
The argument can be focused in the following manner by asking:
In the definition of the word "synonymous", what does the inclusion of
the word "nearly" allow for?
Provided he agreed to use the above definitions, Snit's argument is:
"sexual intercourse between closely related persons" is not "nearly the
same" (with an emphasis on the word "nearly") as "sexual intercourse".
Conclusion: Snit is most definitely not allowing the word "nearly" into
the equation to make his argument.
Makes me wonder what other pairings of partners Snit would disallow. It
raises the question of how Snit is defining the word "sex" if he's not
defining it with the definition I provided here (he can't be). To Snit,
"sex" is obviously "sexual intercourse" between a predefined set of
partners... a bias he holds that, I suspect, he's unwilling to talk
about.
Wally
On 20/2/08 3:04 AM, in article
gkreme-958B1A....@news.giganews.com, "Lewis" <gkr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article <C3E0F32C.181D8%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
> Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>> The very fact that you can state the above proves that even you see that
>> incest has to be synonymous with sex ... It simply cannot exist without it!
>>
>
> Oranges are synonymous with trees?
But are more likely to be considered synonymous with Vitamin C or Florida!
> Rain is synonymous with clouds?
For me rain is synonymous with London!
> Poker is synonymous with playing cards?
But is more likely to be considered synonymous with gambling!
> You need to look up synonymous in the dictionary,
Not if your examples are anything to go by!
> I think.
You may well do...but you clearly have not thought hard enough about the
word synonymous and it's meaning, had you done so you would realize that
there are many variants as to what could be considered synonymous with most
things, it is the very nature of synonyms that YMMV!!
Interestingly you appear unable to comment on the actual point under
discussion..that being.... Is incest synonymous with sex?
Perhaps the 'I' is missing from your dictionary?
Wally
On 20/2/08 4:04 AM, in article
trollkiller-8F09...@newsgroups.comcast.net, "Steve Carroll"
<troll...@TK.com> wrote:
For the sake of consistency I will use the definition of synonymous that I
used previously, that being...
"If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the two
things are so closely connected in most people's minds that one suggests the
other:"
That's not to say that mine is any more or less accurate than the one you
use here ...It's just that any mention of sameness appears to confuse Snit
even more than usual!
> Given these definitions... is it inaccurate to state that incest and sex
> are synonymous?
>
> * We cannot say that incest and sex are "the same" because incest
> differentiates the two based on the identification of the partners.
> Notably, that is the sole difference.
>
> * The term "sexual intercourse" (the act itself) is "the same thing"
> (the same "act") in both incestuous sexual intercourse and
> non-incestuous sexual intercourse.
>
> The argument can be focused in the following manner by asking:
>
> In the definition of the word "synonymous", what does the inclusion of
> the word "nearly" allow for?
>
> Provided he agreed to use the above definitions, Snit's argument is:
That proviso is a huge stumbling block Steve!
> "sexual intercourse between closely related persons" is not "nearly the
> same" (with an emphasis on the word "nearly") as "sexual intercourse".
>
> Conclusion: Snit is most definitely not allowing the word "nearly" into
> the equation to make his argument.
>
> Makes me wonder what other pairings of partners Snit would disallow. It
> raises the question of how Snit is defining the word "sex" if he's not
> defining it with the definition I provided here (he can't be). To Snit,
> "sex" is obviously "sexual intercourse" between a predefined set of
> partners... a bias he holds that, I suspect, he's unwilling to talk
> about.
It appears to me that Snit will define 'sex' as being all and every form of
sexual act...that way he can claim that as incest does not necessarily
include all of these various acts it therefore cannot be considered
synonymous with all these acts...'sex'!
That is why he will never agree to defining 'sex' as you have defined it
above as being...
Wally
On 19/2/08 11:10 PM, in article C3E0316A.A93B7%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
If you really want to know ... It was the re-hashing you did directly after
you made that statement the first time!
Steve Carroll
Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Snit is not honest and honorable.
Snit
> "If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the two
> things are so closely connected in most people's minds that one suggests the
> other:"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6
To most people, Wally, the concept of sex does not "suggest" incest. The
two concepts simply are not synonymous to anyone but a pervert.
Snit
>> What part of "I am not looking re-hash your defense for your repulsive and
>> perverted claims" did you not understand?
>
> If you really want to know ... It was the re-hashing you did directly after
> you made that statement the first time!
Repeating the mere fact that sex and incest are not synonymous is not
rehashing your perverse disagreement.
You are a pervert, Wally... no need to re-hash your silly semantic games
attempts to try to make it seem otherwise.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C3E23EBC.18235%Wa...@wally.world.net on 2/20/08 4:32 AM:
>
> > "If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the two
> > things are so closely connected in most people's minds that one suggests the
> > other:"
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/6
>
> To most people, Wally, the concept of sex does not "suggest" incest. The
> two concepts simply are not synonymous to anyone but a pervert.
Snit wrote:
"The reason we need an incest taboo is because there is no effective
way for the state to protect children from sexual abuse by family
members. Children are essentially at the mercy of the adults who
care for them. So only by building into adults a psychological
mechanism of disgust and horror at incest can society protect
children from the psychological harm of abuse by close relatives.
The taboo runs deeper than the law itself."
Snit also wrote:
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."
Conclusion: Snit believes that preventing "children from the
psychological harm of abuse by close relatives" is *some* kind of a
"reason"... it's just not a *logical* reason so as to disallow incest.
I wonder how he figures the "psychological mechanism" of such a "taboo"
would ever get 'built into adults' if law didn't give it any weight. In
any event, what's most disturbing to me here is that Snit did not draw a
distinction between incest and pedophilia... two topics he carelessly
sloshed back and forth between.
Snit does not see any *logical* reason to disallow what he is obviously
labeling a perversion (incest). I wonder where he draws the line between
'allowable' perversions and 'disallowable' perversions...
teada...@earthlink.net
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C3E23EBC.18235%Wa...@wally.world.net on 2/20/08 4:32 AM:
>
> > "If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the two
> > things are so closely connected in most people's minds that one suggests the
> > other:"
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/6
>
> To most people, Wally, the concept of sex does not "suggest" incest. The
> two concepts simply are not synonymous to anyone but a pervert.
>
Poor snit still having a problem reading. Neither Steve, Wally or I
have ever said that Sex 'suggests' Incest. We have however stated, and
correctly so, that incest suggests sex, therefore proving that incest
is synonymous with sex.
Snit
683e0571-46d3-434d...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com on 2/20/08
3:31 PM:
Wally has said in regards to sex and incest that one idea suggests the
other... which is appalling.