subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
In article <2psdkm$[email]> [email] (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:

Did you refer to Ms. Lostrom or me when you said "you".
I (not as any part of in this role_playing therapy) will later
say something about the advantages of letting Tibet get independence
for China.I am not representing any government or organization so I
think I have a littlel more freedom to speak (other wise my words will
be used).

I think TI is not an evil thing for the Chinese and U with China is not
an evil thing for the Tibetan. While SOME Tibetan are fighting for
independence, they must prepare for the eventual result of not getting
independence and cooperate with China to bultd a better Tibetan. While
we the Chinese (at least majority of the Chinese seems to me) oppose
TI, we still need to take the possible success of TI into the
consideration and prepare to coperate with an independent TI for the
mutaul benefits of the possible two countries.


author: Wing Ng

subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <2pu4fp$[email]> [email] (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:

Surprise!  Read D.L.'s "Freedom in Exile" and see the map.  There is
_no_ Gansu corridor, it's all swallowed by Tibet and Mongolia,
and there is no more land connection between PRC and "East Turkestan".

D.L. also detached the Northeast and calls it "Manchuria" for good
measure.

Wing


author: Zhiqi Zuo

subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
It is Tibetans' right to chose to be or not to be Chinese,
we don't want to see the Tibetans losing their identity. To
many of us, Dalai Lama's suggestion that Tibet should become a
Shangrila type international nature park is a great and
wonderful idea. Chinese should learn to respect human rights
and practice democracy. Even the president Clinton is going
to meet some Indian leaders from the hundreds of tribes, after
two years' delay for some hint promises. This will be the first
meeting of a American president with Indian leaders in more than
170 years. (Of course, this is not the first time). Please learn
from us about the universal conception of democracy. Under the
law, the tribe governments are even equal to foreign governments.
Ask Indians how delighted they will be when the hope is that they
may even get some high positions in the USA federal government
in the future. What about China? Tibetans don't even have real
power in the so-called loacl TAR government, their nominal titles
and positions in the central governments are nothing good and
useful but to serve the dictatorship. What else can we say?

John

In article <2prjse$[email]> [email] (Tingli Pan) writes:


subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
We are positive that time will come for us Tibetans to
have our own government. We can do and live without
Chinese approval and promises. No matter what Chinese
have done to us, no matter what Chinese think, we don't
hate Chinese. But we need our right for self-detemination.

We can't reach something more and common here. Seems that
you need some time to change your mind.

Tenzin

In article <2prjse$[email]> [email] (Tingli Pan) writes:


subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
In article <2pva16$[email]> [email] (Junchun Yu) writes:

I thought that your opinions would be those that had been frequently
presented by TI people, so as to be typical thus of realistic meaning.
My idea of the ideal world is that we only have one government and one
country (I am serious). Sounds real?

If it became a widespread conflict, people on two sides would have
little chance to be calm down until they can ALL(not just a single side)
feel the pain.

Anyway, seems that many people on two sides are still quite opinionated,
thinking more truth and better ideas are with them and some other people
are screwed up.

Well, I hope that you guys can take many REAL situations into your
account.


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (andrew ï¿½) writes:

Actually D.L. said his family helped a Chinese family that suffered
from famine, so there are Han Chinese there in his neighborhood.

Relate to the thread few weeks ago whether Xining is included
in D.L's Tibet:  it is, see his "Freedom in Exile".  Qinghai definitely
has a Han majority.

He also claimed all of the Gansu Corrdior linking China interior
with Xinjiang, thereby cutting X. off and guaranteeing that X.
gets indep. as "East Turkestan".  Gansu Corridor has _never_ been
inhabited by anyone except Han Chinese for at least 3,00 years.
One king of Zhou supposedly visited Kun Lun mountains about 3,000
years ago, "Mu Tian Zi Zhuan".  Why you think these mountain ranges
in "East Turkestan" bear Han Chinese names like Tian Shan and Kun
Lun?  The Hans were there before the Turkic Uighurs.  "Discover"
magazine has article in Apr. about Caucasian corpses preserved
there, so maybe the Iranians were there before Hans, but that's
it, and Iranians are no longer there.  Anyway, subject matter
for talk.politics.xinjiang.

Wing


author: Tingli Pan

subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
In article <2proqc$[email]>, Zhiqi Zuo <[email]> wrote:
Since Tibet is part of China, then the people live there don't have too
much choice, but Chinese citizen. Unless a foreign country wants to
accept an individual as its citizen. (many Chinese staying in US is a
good example)

I support democracy, but that doesn't mean I dont support my country'e
integrity. I believe most people in democratic countries do the same.
LIke most Americans don't want to see that each state becoming
independent countries no matter how liberal they are.

Tingli Pan


author: Junchun Yu

subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
In article <2q0m2a$[email]> [email] (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:

But all the opinions here are cliches now and almost everybody is still
goof around at square one.

That's not the problem. Like it or not, China has absolute controlling
power over Tibet and this power will not be gone even if it allows
Tibet independence. So China can absolutely manipulate the independence
mode in the best of her interest.  China can find a way to make Tibet
independence serve the China's interests even better than the unity.
But it does not mean China has to sacrifice Tibet intersets. The only
difference is that Tibet internal affairs is managed by a Dalai Lama
led government, but in the meantime Tibet coperate with China in all
other respects.  If China itself does not go into a chaos, there will
be no widespread conflicts between Sino-Tibet border because the Tibet
independence process will be under China's control.

I am the one who is not concerned with truths but only what can serve
the BOTH sides optimally.

A joint China-Tibet TI preparation commitee will take all possible
situation into account if TI is in order. If China has no ability
to control the situation in the process of TI, it will not have
the same ability to control Tibet's situation without TI. So your
concern is not necessary (if it is necessary, your concern will
exsit too even withou TI).
China can treat an independet Tibet as West Germany used to treat
East Germany: allowing the international recognition of that country
but China's governmental branch in charge of relationship with Tibet
will not be foreign ministry but a specially-established department
and Tibet will do the same and the option for the future reunification
will always open.


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Wing Ng) writes:

Iranians is a concept that is more fuzzy than the term  "Chinese".
It could mean Persian,Tajiks,Aserbiajiang. Many famous Persian
poets are called Azer poets in USSR like Shadi,Rubai (I am not sure
the English transliterating of these names). Persian is currently
called Farsi (sp?), which is fundamentally different than ancient
Persian. But In Xinjiang, some Tajiks still speak ancient Persian
so that it means Iranians are still there. The old Shah of Iran
rename Persia as Iran in order to embraces all the ethinical groups.


subject: Re: Karen as turncoat

text:
In article <2prsas$[email]> [email] (Tingli Pan) writes:
...

I somehow surrender to your thinking. Although human rights are
universal, we still have treason crimes in all the countries. A
state is different from an individual, but we should have more
choices, shouldn't we?  :-(not sure)-:

  John

Our Tibet has our own integrity.

  Tenzin


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <2q5v6a$[email]> [email] (Junchun Yu) writes:

The term Iranian is meant to be fuzzy.  They are only whites,
Caucasians, no way of telling what language they spoke when they
were alive :-)

Wing


author: Joe Huang

subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Wing Ng) writes:

I would not support a Tibetan claim to the Gansu corridor, but aren't
you overstating the historical facts quite a bit ? If Gansu corridor
had _never_ been inhabited by anyone except Han Chinese for 3,000 years,
what do you consider the XiXia Kingdom (900's to the 1270's) ? Weren't
they Tanguts (related to Tibetans), and ruled Ningxia and the Gansu
corridor for 3 centuries until destroyed by Genghis Khan? From the
middle Tang to the establishment of the Ming, 760's to 1370's, the
Gansu corridor was not ruled by the "central authorities" (I love
that PRC anachronism :-)), but by Tibetans, Shato Turks, Tanguts,
and Mongols. Don't they count as inhabitants ? During the Ming,
the corridor was populated mainly by military settlements (weisuo),
and frequently overrun by Mongols.

While the Gansu corridor probably always had a strata of Han farmers,
the Han presence in Xinjiang was much more tenuous and purely military
until the recent migration of Han settlers in the 50's. True, the
Chinese names for the two mountain ranges date to pre-Han times
(do the Uighurs and Kazakhs use them ? just curious), and a few Chinese
adventurers, monks, and armies passed through the area in the Han
and Tang dynasties, but did they ever set roots there ?  The Chinese
presence in Xinjiang was very sporadic - 100 B.C. to 280 A.D. or so
(hotly contested by the Xiongnu), 660's to 780's (hotly contested by
the Turks and Tibetans), and from 1720 on with Qianlong's defeat of
the Eleuth Mongols - and consisted of military garrisons trying to
keep local rulers in line.

I don't know what is the big deal about the Caucasian corpses.
Historians have known for decades that the local inhabitants down
to the 6th Century or so spoke an extinct Indo-european language
(Tokharian) and were probably Caucasian. That would put them in
the same language tree as Tajiks and Iranians, but calling them
Iranians would be anachronistic.

The ethnic mix of Xinjiang reflects its history over the last
thousand years - Uighurs, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Mongols, etc., and a
sprinkling of Han following the Qing conquest. You make it sound
like the Chinese have there all the time.

Joe Huang


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (andrew ï¿½) writes:

D.L., or his group, say one thing and then another thing elsewhere
that contradicts.  I don't mean that they lie, but it reflects various
factions, or uncertainty about what they really want.

Wing


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (andrew ï¿½) writes:

If he is supposed to represent 6 million Tibetans, he is making
some point.

Things are screwed up.


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Joe Huang) writes:

Xixia had citizens who are Hans as well as Tanguts, I think
some of the prime ministers are Hans.

Someone pointed out the Great Wall runs the whole length of
the Gansu corridor, rather good indication of who the inhabitants
are in my books.

Guo Moruo claims that Li Bai the Tang poet was born in Shui Ye,
on Lake Balkash, even west of Xinjiang.  I am sure PRCers have read
that book.  Supposedly an indication that Hans settled in Xinjiang
long time ago.

the only big deal was that when the Han Chinese got to Xinjiang,
there were _no_ Uighurs, there were only Indo-Europenas, who
were apparently extinct more than 1,000 years ago.

So the Hans had a longer claim to X. than the Uighurs.

Wing


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]>, Joe Huang <[email]> wrote:
.....
If we start the "all the time" from 1720.

Tingli Pan


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Wing Ng) writes:

I'm not arguing the absence of Han people in the Gansu corridor,
just your claim that "Gansu Corridor has _never_ been inhabited by
anyone except Han Chinese for at least 3,00 years." Judging from
the fact that the Tanguts fought the Sung to a standstill, developed
their own script (now lost), it's save to classify Xixia as a non-Han
kingdom. Your 3,000 years figure is also questionable. The Chinese
first settled the Gansu corridor under Emperor Han WuDi (~100 B.C.)
to outflank the Xiongnu, or 2000, not 3000 years ago. Qinshihuangdi's
Great Wall did not include the Gansu corridor.

There's no question that the inhabitants now are solidly Han,
courtesy of the Ming and Qing dynasty. The wall was built under
the Ming (although there were some previous earthen ramparts under
the Han). Under the Ming, the corridor was a military district,
not part of the civilian adminstration, and constantly attacked
and overrun by the Mongols.

How does Li Bai possibly having Central Asian blood translate into
a Han settlement in Xinjiang? During the Tang,there were many
adventurers who travelled to the Tang heartland. Many Tang generals
were of Turkish, Sogdianian, Korean backgrounds. Does that indicate
Han presence in their places of origin ?  Instead of these claims
and suppositions, it would be easy to identify a native Chinese
community in Xinjiang if there were one. After all, one reads of
Persians in India (Parsi), Jews in China, even possibly Greeks in
Afghanistan millenia after their migration. Do you know of any ?

By this logic, the Greeks have a longer claim to Afghanistan than
the Pushtun or the Tajiks. The ancient Chinese presence in Xinjiang
during the Han and Tang were military garrisons that lasted a few
decades at most, and ended back in the 8th century. The Uighur
settled there in the 12th, and have been there continuously ever
since. Is there some bacillus that makes any area trod upon by
Chinese armies Chinese territory in perpetuity ? :-) It's also
highly likely that the earlier inhabitant did not all die out,
but were assimilated by the later invaders. That could be why
Uighur look noticeably more "Caucasian" looking than Han
Chinese or Mongols.

Joe Huang


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Joe Huang) writes:

True. Some mongolians(some Tibetans too) were found to have blue/grey eyes.
In XingJiang, this must be true too. As a northeast grown-up, I had met many
people having very light skin, very light brown eyes, and very light hairs.
Other than some slight looking differences, we identify with each other
culturally. This is the indication of the racial complexity in many regions
where caucacian and mongoloids met.

I am always wondering how we can compromise on the concept of ethnic
identities in the mixing areas. Han definitely had absorbed many other
people into itself gradually in frontier regions.

Back to the topic of Gansu Corridor. It was a part of the Silk Way in
which all kinds of traders once traveled. This was a huge conflicting
region between the peoples. By the time of XiXia, many nomads around
here settled down to develope agriculture like typical Han people.
They had mixed with each other. Many of the earlier inhabitants
must have been assimilated into Han in the past hundreds of years.

The history of XingJiang must be much more complex, since there had been
too many things happenned there. Many original people must have been
driven away and around, migrated around to search for fresh grasslands,
assimilated to each other, and even been wipped out like Zungar Mongols
had been. Most of its population distribution and constitute pattern
may be very different from more than 800 years.


author: Dong Xiao

subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <2qm6g8$[email]> [email] (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:

    I have this question for a long time, maybe you folks can answer.
I thought the "Caucasians" were Russians.  But many white folks in the
States identify themselves as "Caucasians" even if they are originally
from, say, the UK.


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <2qocuv$[email]> [email] (Dong Xiao) writes:
...

According to a widely accepted and disputed theory, all the ancestors of our
human beings were from Africa. Sometime in the evolution and emigration
process, the human beings were classified VERY ROUGHLY into three(or five)
races: Black Africans, Yellow Mongoloid and White Caucasians. Many WCs
originally stayed in a region around the Caucasisus Mountains for a very
long time, before venturing into other parts of Europe.


author: Jeffrey B. Green

subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <2qocuv$[email]> [email] (Dong Xiao) writes:
-
-    I have this question for a long time, maybe you folks can answer.
-I thought the "Caucasians" were Russians.  But many white folks in the
-States identify themselves as "Caucasians" even if they are originally
-from, say, the UK.
-

	I would assume that if a person's _proper_ ancestry was from the
	UK then he/she should be classified as Anglo (from Anglo-Saxon, or is
	it the other way around) which is the way many whites in the US do refer
	to themselves. I'm not sure how a person should be classified if he comes
	from say France or Denmark or possibly several others that might be thought
	of as _a_source_for_whites_. "Caucasian" may at this time be a generic term
	which refers to some ancient tribe located somewhere which is thought to be
	the origin of that race. Good question.

-- Jeff


author: jack chao

subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
I think you were talking about the human's common mom "Lucy". :-)

Some time this year, TIME magazine had an article announced some
evidences and declared that human  were evolved separately in different
places "concurrently". So the momie Lucy theory is in doubt. I don't
know what is correct, just some thing to toss in.

Jack

In article [email], [email] (Zhiqi Zuo) writes:
In article <2qocuv$[email]> [email] (Dong Xiao) writes:
....

According to a widely accepted and disputed theory, all the ancestors of our
human beings were from Africa. Sometime in the evolution and emigration
process, the human beings were classified VERY ROUGHLY into three(or five)
races: Black Africans, Yellow Mongoloid and White Caucasians. Many WCs
originally stayed in a region around the Caucasisus Mountains for a very
long time, before venturing into other parts of Europe.


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
In article <2qp2nc$[email]> [email] writes:

I have read it too, but it seemed to be a continuation of another
highly disputed theory for which there are only few evidences(?)
existing. The article was kind of biased, giving special favors to
some scholars while questioning other scientists' lacking of modern
technique. There were many people in the past who didn't like the
idea of being related to Africa.


subject: Re: Basic questions on Tibet Independ.

text:
The theory of Caucasien, Mongoloid and Black Africans was way before the
"Lucy", which was discovered by Prof. Leaky (?!) in the sixties.
Therefore there should be no suprise of the contradiction between those
two ideas.

Tingli Pan


author: qlangley

subject: German poll could swing the French their referendum

text:
France is now in the final week of its referendum campaign, and the two
sides are very firmly drawn. Chirac's cronies claim the constitution
defends the European (meaning French) "social model". His opponents say
it institutionalises "anglo-saxon" capitalism. Yesterday's crushing
defeat for the German SPD-Green coalition in its heartland of North
Rhine-Westphalia dramatically strenghthens the hands of the no campaign
in France. If French voters expect free market CDU/CSU-Free Democrat
coalition to be in office in Germany by the autumn, they will fear what
a Anglo-German alliance committed to free enterprise and the Atlantic
alliance could achieve in Europe. The German opposition did not support
Schroeder's anti-American, pro-French stance over the Iraq war.


subject: Re: German poll could swing the French their referendum

text:
You are unclear on what is meant by "Anglo-Saxon capitalism".  What I
mean by this is a highly competitive deregulated market economy.   All
political parties in France favour dirigisme - state guided capitalism
rather than laissez-faire.  The CDU/CSU and the FDP even more strongly
favour moving towards deregulation and more flexible markets.  The
CDU/CSU also condemned Schroeder's anti-American policy on Iraq, though
you may be right that the FDP would opt for a middle course.

The SPD's anti-American and anti-semitic campaign in North Rhine
Westphalia was not about criticising Israel.  I am referring to Franz
Munterfering publishing a "locust list" of mostly Jewish-American
businesspeople whom he tried to scapegoat for the failings of the
German economy.  Publishing the names of Jews for public hatred was a
common government tactic during the Nazi years.

Read more at my blog:  www.quentinlangley.net


author: Tant qu'il fera jour

text:
qlangley a écrit :

It is big indeed. But not all proponents of a "no" vote do oppose
Turkey'bid. Maverick socialist senator Melanchon favours Turkey'
application; he even is in favor of enlarging the Union to North
African countries from which so many of his constituents are coming; he
is enamored of the Third World

Which is untrue and just a campaign argument for domestic consumption

I do not know what is "Anglo-Saxon capitalism". The most likely German
Foreign Secretary if the CDU/CSU - FDP coalition is voted in , is
Wolfgang Gerhardt, from the liberal FDP; he will be cautious to follow
a balanced course between America and France. The referendum campaign
has been hijacked : many "no" votes will be cast in opposition to
Chirac; these people simply don't care about Europe

What was, and is, at stake is the definition of a European distinct
stand on world issues, meaning : distinct from America's. You could
label me as an "extreme Euro-federalist". The Middle-East is next door
to us. We cannot see it the way the US does

No. To his credit, Schroeder started the whole thing at a time when
Chirac and Villepin postured to be "between" Washington and Berlin.

I don't know, but it worked. I would have disliked the repetition of
the 1991 thing or, even worse, the agression against Serbia in 1999

I am unaware of this. We badly need rulers in Europe who have the guts
to tell "the only democracy in the Middle-East" : we don't owe you
anything; if that is antisemitism, it is fine

No. He is a waverer, a guy who shifts stands all the time


text:
Good point.  The Turkey issue is big in France.  But I stand by my
point that the main issue is the future direction of Europe.  Chirac
claims the constitution reinforces the French model of capitalism and
his opponents that it reinforces Anglo-Saxon capitalism.  With Germany
likely to move, somewhat, in the Anglo-Saxon direction, this poll
undermines Chirac's position.  Where I have to disagree is your claim
that the Chirac/Schroeder position was not anti-American.  That it was
"independent" is a rather silly point.  Hardly anyone disputes the
right of France and Germany to make their own foreign policy, excepting
only the most extreme Euro-federalists.  Of course it was independent,
but no more or less so than the British policy.  Where the
British/Spanish/Italian/Polish/Portugese . . . etc etc position
differed from France, Germany and Belgium is over attitudes to America.
 Schroeder and Chirac in particular DEFINED their position by hostility
to America.  In Schroeder's case this was pure electoral opportunism,
just like the anti-American and anti-semitic campaign his party waged
in North Rhine Westphalia.  To his credit, I think Chirac genuinely
believes in his policy.


text:
qlangley a écrit :
what
support

Well, the CDU/CSU is known to oppose Turkey'bid for EU membership; many
voters this side of the Rhine think they could block Ankara'bid by
casting a "no" ballot. It is not the right way to do it, but such is
their misled opinion. Over the Iraq war, Schroeder initiated the whole
thing during his campaign for reelection at a time when Chirac and
Villepin were still wavering and posturing to be "between" Washington
and Berlin. It is France which eventually switched to the independent
(not : anti-American) Schroeder stance. As for myself, I shall vote
"yes", and I would welcome a CDU/CSU victory if it could block
Turkey'bid


author: Tera Free Nws

subject: Hey, Gene. You might have to write another letter to Mundy

text:
The hysterics over at speaking truth might have a point.

After all I don't see anyone speaking up about this incident.

"I was there in San Francisco, all sucked into the frenzy. After all
we had the collection of Teachers, Mystics, Master Teachers and lets
not forget Renard who has *new aged* Ken wapnik's version of the
course with his seeing assended masters.

I was there with what I referred to as *THE SMACK HEARD AROUND THE
SPIRITUAL COMMUNITY*..Was feet away when MASTER TEACHER felt prompted
to smack very hard the forehead of one of his followers.

Please read this carefully: This is a post from a follower of Master
Teacher...writing to yet another Master Manipulator...Now please read
this and allow yourself to feel:"

Moreover it seems this is verified by another independent account.

"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Speakingtruth/message/283

What the hell is going on? It seems Renard has opened the door for all
the crazies, and Mundy, Perry, and Mackie won't speak after being
burned by Renard.

What's your comment?

This "Miracles Conference" sounds like a freakn' circus!


author: Gene Ward Smith

subject: Re: Hey, Gene. You might have to write another letter to Mundy

text:
Tera Free Nws <[email]> wrote in news:1190511397.583621.10780
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

MT has always been a flake.

What they are teaching isn't ACIM, so in some sense it has no importance
to ACIM as such. The problem is, of course, that they say otherwise. In a
way Renard and MT serve a purpose similar to the method Katie has found
for herself. Caught like a moth by the light, both attracted and
repelled, follows of these "leaders" have found a means of postponing the
whole business without turning away from it. Obviously, not a permanent
solution.


text:
On Sep 22, 9:48 pm, Gene Ward Smith <[email]> wrote:

Well seems like a problem when the commercial interests at the
Miracles Conference are endorsing all this teaching which isn't ACIM.

At least Mundy got off the rah, rah, band wagon.

Sounds to me like the all the rah, rah is coming from Rev Tony what-
he's-name in SF, and all the workshop purveyors who need another
superstar to sell a workshop.

I guess the commercial end of ACIM is bigger and more influential than
I would have believed. It also sounds like an embracement of cultic
practices under the guise of brotherhood and forgiveness.  ACIM one
big happy family, cults and ascended masters and any other kind of
bull shit that sells.

I guess I'm just getting cynical.


text:
On Sep 22, 10:26 pm, Gene Ward Smith <[email]> wrote:

Yeah, well a mess and getting to be a bigger mess.

Funny, neither Wapnick nor MT are even comprehendiable. I've heard
numerous people describe MT's video's as ravings. Wapnickians seems
clueless to what Wapnick even believes.

Renard, isn't even a good Wapnickian. After all he believes he was a
disciple of Jesus. A&P must have missed that Wapnick doesn't believe
in a historical Jesus.


text:
On Sep 22, 10:47 pm, Deborah <[email]> wrote:

The text is written in a symphonic fashion with multiple levels of
redundancy.

I have the very first printing of the Blue Book. Everything one needs
to understand the author and his teaching is there. Wapnick's editing
has NOT made it impossible for me to come to very different
conclusions about course teachings than Wapnick.

Moreover, the heavily edited first five chapter might just have divine
intervention because these chapter not only make perfect sense to me,
but for all purposes contain the entire Course.

The problem with Course scholarship is not so much what is the "real
version," rather its the Wapnick contention that large portions of the
text should be read as metaphor with outside interpretation applied.


subject: Re: Take heart, John

text:
On Sep 22, 10:41 pm, A-Meister <[email]> wrote:

Well perhaps. It seems what is sadly lacking is a voice for non-
commercial interest and course integrity.  Course teachings can be
hijacked by a few idiots, but someone should say it ain't right.
Mundy, Perry and Mackie seem a bit intimidated by Renard.

Its amazing how Renard could threaten Beverly Hutchinson like a thug,
then have it swept under the rug.

Perhaps its all circumstantial. But to me its an indication of lack of
integrity in small things which will sooner or later manifest in lack
of integrity in larger issues.


subject: Re: Take heart, John

text:
On Sep 22, 11:29 pm, Deborah <[email]> wrote:

Well, that's kindda the point. The only one's crowing about teachers
and speaker's circuits and bring people back to the course are the
commercial interest.

After all, for all his crowing, Renard has no real idea how many
people he turned off of course study with his book. He attracted quite
a few no doubt, but what did he attract to course study but a lot of
air heads willing to believe in ascended masters and Gary Renard.


author: aum-orchestra

text:
On 24 sep, 16:51, "mr bill" <[email]> wrote:

This is exactly the reason that the UTUR unified transcription
will *not* include interpretation at all! :-)

namazt�


text:
On Sep 24, 5:27 pm, "Carrie" <[email]> wrote:

Oh, you mean the trite observation that nearly everyone understands
from an early age.

Yeah, you're a brain and thinker.


text:
On Sep 24, 5:48 pm, "mr bill" <[email]> wrote:

Carrie holds moral authority superior to yours.

She doesn't have to acknowledge differences accepted by morally
inferior beings like yourself


text:
On Sep 24, 10:21 pm, "Carrie" <[email]> wrote:

~Well gee, Carrie what makes you think that people don't accept you as
someone with scum bag values?

Why not live your stated belief and accept that people don't enjoy
being annoyed by people with scum bag values?

Its not exactly like you made a lot of positive impressions defending
Katie Dean every inch of the way in what is most likely one of the
longest running sadistic hate campaigns in Internet history.

What impressed me Carrie was your willingness to invert spirituality
to embrace and support behavior which clearly bordered on criminal
behavior by current Internet cyber stalking laws.


text:
Tera Free Nws <[email]> wrote in news:1190517558.225680.172310
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Much ACIM "teaching" has been a mess for a long time, starting with MT and
with Ken going off the rails.


author: A-Meister

subject: Take heart, John

text:
Tera Free Nws wrote:

It's always been that way, John. Christianity
has a long history of cultic practices, under
the guise of brotherhood and forgiveness. The
fact that idiots attempt hijacking everything
that comes along is a reflection on them, not
on that which they've attempted to hijack. If
that's all Christianity or ACIM has going for
them, it would be a problem. Fact is, ACIM is
open to misinterpretation and exploitation as
is just about any other movement in the world
today. Imitation's the best form of flattery,
however, so let the jerks do their darnedest.


author: Deborah

text:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:04:49 -0700, Tera Free Nws <[email]>
wrote:

My own interpretation of the course, after several years of
selt-study, does not bear a whole lot of similarity to Ken's
interpretation either.  He's too psychological for me.  But I've never
been able to appreciate the first five chapters of the published
version much.  It all sounds kind of airy fairy to me.  I know that a
lot of people think it's absolutely fundamental to understanding
course metaphysics, but I don't get much understanding out of it.

Deborah (BC)


author: Pieter

text:
"Tera Free Nws" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

What follows after the first five chapters
must be seen as in complete harmony with them,
or one has to correct one's undertsanding of them.
Concerning content Jesus never contradicts himself.
Imo the Course is quite holistic.
Later chapters as well "contain the entire Course".


subject: Re: Take heart, John

text:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:21:31 -0700, Tera Free Nws <[email]>
wrote:

Why don't we all just read the course itself?  What do we need with
the speaker circuit?

Deborah (BC)


subject: Re: Take heart, John

text:
"Tera Free Nws" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...

Exactly. That's why the *sole* responsibility of
a miracle worker is to accept the Atonement
for him/herself. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
He will guide us.
Integrity in small things will sooner or later
manifest in integrity in larger issues.


author: mr bill

text:
that, my friend, will not stop people from interpreting, and from arguing
about those interpretations.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:26:51 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

I just read the book.  I don't need interpreters.  But it does bother
me a lot that no one knows anymore what the *real* version is.  And we
have you to thank for that, don't we?

Deborah (BC)


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

If your bitter resentment didn't stop you, you could study the versions you
hate without bothering to read. They might help, and for sure they would be
different.


subject: Re: Take heart, John

text: because of the very human tendency to play follow the leader.


author: Carrie

text:
"mr bill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:fCWJi.83707$[email]...

 Which comes back to my belief in everyone having their own interpretation,
belief, and "truth"

  Especially about a book like A Course in Miracles.

   Arguing about what it means, or doesn't mean and who's right, wrong,
understands what it (the words) say or might mean is a waste of time, and,
in an overall way goes against what the course teaches about peace and
everyone being as right (when coming from ego) as anyone else.

      But, if people want to argue over this, we usually can't stop them
doing that, either, so just accepting it in a peaceful way seems like the
best way.


author: maz

text:
"mr bill" <[email]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fCWJi.83707$[email]...

yup. i'll adjust my statement. Not that there can be no more dispute,
but that there need not be any more dispute about what's been said. Better?

namaztï¿½


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

This is insane, Deborah. Your resentment has blinded you to the simple
reality that facts are merely facts.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:30:21 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

I don't hate any of the earlier versions, Gene.  I've mentioned before
that when I tried to read the Ur, I got the feeling I wasn't supposed
to.  Same sort of feeling Helen got when she went into a cave in
Israel.  I consider it guidance, and would ask that you kindly respect
it.  It has no application to anyone other than me, but it *does*
apply to me.

Deborah (BC)


text:
i do not see how any of the arguing that goes on around here is any more
destructive that the rampant gossip that flies all over the damn place.

i do hope that you know the difference between "interpretation" and "belief"
and "truth"


text:
"Carrie" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:fd9dl5$in3$[email]...

Do you deny that we can be helpful to
one another on our path back Home?
That the Holy Spirit is in everyone, and
can speak through everyone, if we want
to hear Him?

"If you make the mistake of looking for
the Holy Spirit in yourself alone your
thoughts will frighten you because, by
adopting the ego's viewpoint, you are
undertaking an ego-alien journey with
the ego as guide." T-5.III.4:6.

When coming from ego the word "right"
cannot be used. "His ego is always wrong,
no matter what it says or does." T-9.III.2:10
*As creations of God* we all are right.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:28:28 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

Uh huh.  Well, the fact is you care more about scholarship than
anybody's salvation.

Deborah (BC)


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

And were you also divinely guided to make nasty cracks about people who did
read it, and go on attack about it?

You are not being honest here. If you express hatred and fear so openly, do
you think it will not be noticed?


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

It's FEAR, so no, it is not guidance.


text:
"mr bill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:G8XJi.12836$[email]...

      I know my perception and understanding of them (LOL)

     Why can't I just be me and you just be you and we can accept that and
what each other believes?


text:
phew! :-))

thanks, bro. maz
"mr bill" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:0D9Ki.13078$[email]...


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

And your support for this expression of hatred is what? Why did you feel
impelled to say it?

FEAR.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:05:25 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

Who are you to say?

Deborah (BC)


text:
how am i stopping you from being you?

believe whatever you want to believe. while you are at it, take a close look
at why you do not want to let me do the same.

words have meanings, carrie, and if communication is what one desires, one
would do well to stick to what words mean when using them.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:06:36 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

It's true.  That's why I felt impelled to say it.  Do you deny that
it's true, Gene?  Are you going to tell me that you kept to yourself
the purpose of your interest in the copy of the Ur that CIMS obtained
from the copyright office because you were motivated by an interest in
something other than scholarship?

BTW, Gene, telling the truth does not equal hatred.

Deborah (BC)


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

You told us yourself. You've made it very, very obvvious that you bitterly
resent other versions, and you attack people you percieve as responsible
for beinging them to light. If it had been guidance as you claim, you would
simply act in it yourself without making it into a grievance.


text:
"mr bill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4L9Ki.13084$[email]...

   Who said you aren't?  Am I stopping you from being you?

     I didn't realize I wasn't. Since you seem to make what I write to you
into whatever you want it to be, and not how I mean it (and verfies my idea
everyone has their own version of reality and truth)  I have no control over
this.  I write and you interpret it, how you seem to want it to be.

       Who's idea of what the words mean? This is something you've never
explained. Even the "look in the dictionary" isn't the answer, because it's
still how each person believes, perceives, interprets, and expresses what
the word means to them. There can't be any absolute meaning that some are
right and thus some are wrong about.


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

I assumed people could figure out what was on my mind, or some of them at
any rate. Because I was hip-deep in lawyers, I wasn't going to explain my
mind.

But my belief is that Course scholarship will greatly benefit the Atonement
and indeed is going to prove to be an essential part of the very long-term
plan which we are told is in play.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:06:28 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

Gene, you are the one who sees iit as a grievance.  I see iit as
something that has made communication difficult between what are now
various sects of ACIM students - but not impossible.

I don't see you at any point taking any responsibility for this.  I
just hear you blaming me for going with my guidance not to read the
early versions, like this was somehow wrong of me, and I'm asking how
the hell would you know?

This strikes me as being a profoundly ill-conceived position for you
to take.  How the hell would you know, Gene?

If I had received all the help I could possibly ask for with the FIP
version of ACIM, why *wouldn't* the Holy Spirit indicate that I didn't
need to look at the earlier versions?  I'm sorry if you didn't get
maximal help from the FIP version, and you felt you needed to look
behind the curtains, but I am not in that position, myself.

Deborah (BC)


text:
resent other versions, and you attack people you percieve as responsible
for beinging them to light.<<

As far as I can see, this is a past issue!

The only way, imho, to end diversions
based on "versions" is to eliminate the idea
of different "versions" entirely. In fact, versions of
Received Material is an oxymoron, isn't it.

When the Unified Transcription is
accomplished, there can be no more
dispute about what's being said.

A very good reason to show our
gratitude to the Author and Scribes
by treating the Material with utmost care
and respect, for generations to come.

peace, namaztï¿½


text:
what i have noticed is that you say whatever you want to say about anything,
but get really worked up at people who say what they want to say about what
you say. that is what is called a double standard.

i do not know what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. how
exactly am i making what you write to me whatever i want it to be? i am
doing my best to understand what you mean, but i can only go by the words
you choose to use, and i find that i cannot trust them because you do not
stick to common usage.

"look in the dictionary" is a perfect action to take when dealing with
words, carrie. the whole point of using words is to communicate, and one who
wishes to communicate should do everything possible to facillitate that
communication. such facillitation should include using the accepted meanings
for the words to be used.

the whole point i have tried to make to you about all of this is that you
are the one who is making communicating with you next to impossible. if you
are just going to use words and make up your own meanings for them, then you
are not trying to communicate, you are trying to complicate.

why are you so afraid of absolutes?


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:09:35 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

I will respect that belief, Gene.  But I would ask that you respect my
belief that I do not need to look behind the curtains, myself.  I got
maximum benefit from the published version when I was availing myself
of the benefit, and I can't ask for more than that.

Deborah (BC)


text:
Deborah <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

When you make nasty cracks about people because of it, which you do, what
should I call it?


text: there will always be disputes as long as there are interpretations.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:22:55 GMT, Gene Ward Smith
<[email]> wrote:

What "nasty crack" am I supposed to have made?  You'll have to remind
me.

Deborah (BC)


author: Desertphile

subject: Re: Commentary: What are we teaching at taxpayers' expense?

text:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:43:50 -0700 (PDT), Jason Spaceman
<[email]> wrote:

But I heard gravity is the dumbest and most dangerous religion in
the world. Or was it sunlight? Damn, now I forget.

... which contradict themselves.

Golly, how refreshing.

In the same sense that sunlight is also of faith.

"There is no god," the Bible added. Jesus said "Suffer.... little
children."


author: Ron O

text:
On Oct 3, 12:43ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

A more honest avenue of attack, but stupid.  If evolution were a
religion the ID perps wouldn't have even had to attempt to run the ID
scam let alone run the bait and switch on their own creationist
support base.  This tactic has already lost in the courts.  It is just
simply wrong.  Biological evolution is a scientific theory.  Even the
ID perps acknowledged that.

QUOTE:
While I have only begun to indict the theory of evolution, which has
made no positive contribution to science, I hope you will begin to
question what we are teaching our children. Do we even need to teach
theories of the origin of the universe in public schools? Can we not
just teach science and let each parent and each child decide what to
believe?

In closing, I would like to ask those who believe in evolution this
simple question, "If evolution is true, how do we determine right from
wrong?"
END QUOTE:

NashT would be proud to have someone as ignorant of reality as he is,
but this doesn't wash.  The theory of biological evolution really does
tie biology together.  Scientists don't use it because they believe
it, but because it works.  God did it explanations have a 100% failure
rate.  We just can't use them in science.

Not only that, but what values does this pastor think the majority of
Christians in the world have that have no problem with acknowledging
that biological evolution is a fact of life?  It is always sad that
someone that has a background including the crusades, and the
inquisition, and reformation can talk about the value of human life
that others might hold.  What excuse did humans have before Darwin?

This is more straightforward than the obfuscation scam whose only goal
is to blow smoke and make biological evolution more difficult to
teach, but it is just plain wrong to call evolution a religion.  You
don't have to have any advanced degree to figure that out.  If this
reflected reality we wouldn't have the problem.  We wouldn't be
teaching evolution as science.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto


author: Boikat

text:
On Oct 3, 12:43ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

It's good to know the writer is an idiot, right off the bat.

It's good to know that opinion and objections is based upon religious
belief, and not science, too.

But, being a twit, the author thinks the ToEis a "belief" in the same
context.

Wrong, since it's accepted based upon the ecidence.

Irrelavent.

But, then again, there is also that *evidence* stuff.

And?

Boikat


author: chris thompson

text:
On Oct 3, 1:43ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

No but your church receives substantial tax breaks- like no property
taxes. This goes for places like St. Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity
Church in Manhattan, which sit on top of some of the most expensive
real estate on the planet. So you're getting a free ride of biblical
proportions.

Chris


text:
On Oct 3, 1:43ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

[...]

In the comments section of the article, a contributor points out that
Darwin's centenary edition came out in 1959, and Sir Arthur Keith died
in 1955.

Hilarious.

Chris


author: Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

text:
On Oct 3, 8:18ï¿½pm, chris thompson <[email]> wrote:

Well, we should check the book.  Charles Darwin was dead when that
edition was printed, so it's credible that the author of the foreword
was dead, too.

But in fact Wikipedia's article on Keith says that "Keith did write an
introduction for Origin of Species which was used from 1928 to 1958,
[but] the words quoted here do not appear in that introduction."  Nor
anywhere else known, except for creattionists quoting it.

Wikipedia isn't absolute, but that will do for now.  There may be more
than one "centenary edition", though (and not only because Charles
Darwin's personal anniversary was in 1909), for instance in different
countries, or, given flexible and limited copyright laws, an edition
edited by for instance Henry Morris and with words put into the mouths
of various contributors as he pleased - as Plato did, and Galileo.


text:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 12:18:07 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<[email]> wrote:

Proof that it was written by Satan!


author: Greg G.

text:
On Oct 3, 3:18ï¿½pm, chris thompson <[email]> wrote:

This quote is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Keith:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only
alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
-Sir Arthur Keith, as quoted without original source citation in
Wallie A. Criswell's Did Man Just Happen? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1972), 73.[3]

Footnote 3
 This quote often appears in Creationist publications without a
primary source citation. When one is cited, it is mistakenly
attributed to an introduction for a centennial edition or "100th
edition" of Origin of Species. This, however, is impossible since
Keith had passed away before the 100th anniversary of Darwin's work.
Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction for Origin of
Species which was used from 1928 to 1958, the words quoted here do not
appear in that introduction. Additionally, secondary citations, such
as given by Criswell, amount to hearsay without an original source to
support them. Thus, this oft repeated "quote" should be regarded as
unsubstantiated until a primary source for it can be located.


author: John S. Wilkins

text:
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc [email]
<[email]> wrote:

Both if these quotes are covered in the Quote Mine Project.


author: heekster

text:
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:09:44 +1000, [email] (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

Fascinating.  Has anyone got a theory on how creationists can
reconcile their deliberate lying?  It would seem that a truly ethical
creationist would not do so, intentionally.  Perhaps there are no
truly ethical creationists.


text:
On Oct 8, 9:36ï¿½pm, heekster <[email]> wrote:

I was browsing Conservapedia a while back (just for sh!ts and
giggles), and I happened upon a page where they defend quote mining:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Quote_mining

Of course, they change the connotation of what quote mining is,
essentially denying their dishonesty.


author: [redacted]

text:
"heekster" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

If there are, they are as scarce as hen's teeth .....and "True Christians"
(TM).


author: Mitchell Coffey

text:
On Oct 15, 12:48ï¿½pm, 9fingers <[email]> wrote:

"Another objection sometimes made is that it is wrong to ignore
evidence which supports a partisan viewpoint when evidence which
disproves it is found. This is clearly an anti-scientific notion, as
it violates the modern principle of falsifiability: no amount of
evidence in favor of a scientific theory has merit if even a single
counterexample can be found (see Thomas Kuhn)."

Huh?

Mitchell Coffey


subject: Mission possible? -> 馬英九總統提漢字識正書簡 盼兩岸達成協議: 「識正」就是認識正體字，但要書寫的話可以寫簡體字，印刷體則盡量用正體字，這樣才能跟中華文化的古籍接軌。

text:
馬總統提漢字識正書簡 盼兩岸達成協議
2009-06-09【中央社】

總統馬英九今天接見僑界代表時指出，台灣使用的正體字代表中華文化，但大陸則使用簡體字，他建議可採「識正書簡」方式，希望兩岸未來在這方面也能達成協
議。

馬總統上午接見「駐美中華總會館暨北加州中華會館負責人回國訪問團」，做上述表示。

他說，過去因為兩岸對立，也反映到海外僑社，現在希望大家不必像過去爭得你死我活，僑界也能休兵。

馬總統表示，在國外有許多中文學校，教台灣來的學生正體字，碰到大陸來的學生，就教簡體字。他認為正體字代表中華文化的特色，但大陸因為採用簡體字，有
些正體字看不懂，因此他希望兩岸在這方面未來也能達成協議，採用「識正書簡」方式。

他說，「識正」就是認識正體字，但要書寫的話可以寫簡體字，印刷體則盡量用正體字，這樣才能跟中華文化的古籍接軌。

馬總統指出，他過去幾年一直努力發揚正體字，也希望有一天正體字能成為世界遺產，因為全球很少有文化能讀2000、3000年前的文字，但中華文化就做
得到。

盼兩岸文字協商 「識正書簡」時間空間接軌

中廣新聞

馬英九總統今天表示，他不但希望兩岸能「外交休兵」，也希望這休兵能延伸到僑界，大家不要爭得你死我活。針對海外中文教育，總統建議兩岸協議推動「識正
書簡」，認識正體字，但可以書寫簡體字，這樣才可以和中華文化古籍接軌。

總統表示，政府改善兩岸關係，把台灣海峽的和解延伸到國際社會，「外交休兵」不是「外交休息」，也不是「外交休克」，而是不跟中共在國際上為了爭取邦交
國進行惡鬥，大家維持現狀，雖然到目前為止，兩岸並沒有針對此事進行協商，但這應該是雙方未來在國際社會相處的基本原則。

總統並希望僑界也能休兵，不需要像過去一樣，爭得你死我活。總統以華僑學校的中文教育為例指出，正體字代表中華文化的特色，他希望兩岸能在這方面達成共
識，朝「識正書簡」的方向推動，也就是大家都要認識正體字

『但是你要書寫的話，可以寫簡體字，也就是說，印刷體儘量用正體字，這樣才能與中華文化的古籍，古典的書籍接軌，我覺得這點是非常重要的，這也是我過去
幾年一直在努力的，就是發揚正體字，而且希望有一天能夠成為聯合國的世界遺產......』

此外，總統表示，台灣過去的情況的確不很好，但從3月開始已經有轉變的跡象，對外貿易雖然還是呈現負成長，但衰退幅度已在減少，雖然不敢說景氣開始回
春，但最壞的情況已經告一段落。總統強調，台灣的經濟本質不差，我們要對自己有信心。


LT Lee, baldeagle, lecher dog, Chairman Mao, Ronald Moshski,...  You
	guys are missing all the fun in bashing abianchen cunt the abum_chump.
	http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/


subject:
Ooops, I for got Dirty Sick Pig.  LT Lee, baldeagle, lecher dog,
	Chairman Mao, Ronald Moshski,... You guys are missing all the fun in bashing
	abianchen cunt the abum_chump. http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/

text:
Dirty Sick Pig, LT Lee, baldeagle, lecher dog, Chairman Mao, Ronald
Moshski,...  You
guys are missing all the fun in bashing abianchen cunt the
abum_chump.http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/


author: anti-StupidAbianchenVirus

text:
"Original abianchen" has been exposed to be Meichi, the ugly Thai
whore

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea?hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b?hl=en

On Jun 9, 7:18 pm, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:


On Jun 12, 8:13 pm, anti-StupidAbianchenVirus <[email]>
wrote:

"Original abianchen" has been exposed to be Meichi,
the ugly Thai whore, but nobody would pay good money
for her as she is a tub of lard fatso.


author: Tienxia

subject: Re: Mission possible? -> �R英九���y提�h字�R正���� 盼�砂哆_成�f�h: 「�R正」就是�J�R正�w字，但要����的��可以�����w字，印刷�w�t�M量用正�w字，�@�硬拍芨�中�A文化的古籍接��。

text:
Wow! 4 short simple short sentences in Chinese. Must have taken you
all evening to get them translated on the internet, Meichi. Or were
they sentences you could recall from your cheating days at school?

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea?hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b?hl=en

On Jun 9, 9:18 pm, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:


Wow! 4 short simple short sentences in Chinese. Must have taken you
all evening to get them translated on the internet, Meichi. Or were
they sentences you could recall from your cheating days at school?

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea...

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b...

But she's "a guy from Taiwan" but with no balls between her legs.  She
has a cunt and a filthy smelly pussy too.

"Original abianchen" has been exposed to be Meichi, the ugly Thai
whore, but nobody would pay good money for her as she is a tub of lard
fatso.


text:
Rusty Old Fool can NOT read Chinese, his knowledge about China is
limited even he read English books about Chinese history, he still
made over 10 mistakes in 1 month, this old fool simply can NOT learn!
I corrected his mistakes he got mad with me and cursed me over a
year!!!

What a sad old fool! Haha!

On Jun 13, 5:47 am, rst0wxyz <[email]> wrote:


"Original abianchen" has been exposed to be Meichi, the ugly Thai
	whore, but nobody would pay good money for her as she is a tub of lard fatso
	ugly whore.


subject: Re: Mission possible? -> 馬英九總統提漢字識正書簡 盼兩岸達成協議: 「識正」就是認識正體字，但要書寫的話可以寫簡體字，印刷體則盡量用正體字，這樣才能跟中華文化的古籍接軌。

text:
This is just another "cut-and-paste" troll post written by the ugly,
pathological liar of a Thai prostitute Meichi. Ignore her.

Proven repeatedly to be a pathological liar:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.taiwan/msg/7d33c7741c68371f?hl=en

Warning about abianchen/Meichi the ugly Thai whore
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/64713241e6db2524?hl=en

On Jun 9, 11:35 am, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:


text:
On Jun 9, 9:35 am, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:

其实这个建议非常好。 我非常赞同和支持。
我小学时就有研究佛道的书籍，受益很多。
当时我学的是繁体字，所以难度较小。

台湾政府和海外华侨对传统中华民族文化的一贯维护，使我非常感激。


text:
同感!  我在台�抽L大, 学的也是繁体字, �l�F简体字非常容易.

On Jun 9, 10:02 pm, [email] wrote:


author: baldeagle

subject: To be opened by prostitute with rotten twat

text:
On Jun 10, 10:18 am, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:

...


text:
On Jun 9, 12:35 pm, "[email]" <[email]>
wrote:


author: gogu

subject: UNDEMOCRATIC TURKEY: Press Council condemns Erdogan.

text:
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=9425

Press Council condemns Erdogan

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

The fight for freedom of expression has never been defeated, says council
president Oktay Eksi, reiterating their determination to protect freedom of
the press

ANKARA - Turkish Daily News

  Press Council President Oktay Eksi said on Monday that they had asked 13
days ago for an appointment with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to
speak about the new Turkish Criminal Code (TCK) but had to revoke their
request after failing to receive a response from the prime minister.

  Speaking at a press conference Eksi said he said he never heard of a prime
minister failing to answer such a request for a meeting, adding: "I would
like to say we condemn such an attitude. I would also like to say that if
such a request were made of us, we would gladly accept."

  He said they would send letters to all media groups around the country
asking them to inform the council immediately if an investigation was
launched against them.

  He said the errors in the TCK needed to be amended and added that as a
responsible institution, they would never sever their ties with the prime
minister. "Today Mr. Erdogan occupies the post of prime minister. Tomorrow,
there will be someone different there," he said.

  He said the justice minister and the prime minister were responsible for
improving laws and had to correct the mistakes made, commenting, "Those who
are at those posts need to find ways to fix matters, not find people to
blame."

  Eksi said: "No one has found a way to prevent the expression of free
thought. We all saw attempts to limit it, but people always find a way. No
one has failed in the fight for freedom of expression."


author: Seanie The Grikslapper

subject: Re: UNDEMOCRATIC TURKEY: Press Council condemns Erdogan.

text:
Ahhhhh perfect !

Another fidiot NUMPTY who use the farsical term *MALE SPERM*

Mbouhahahahahahahahahahahahahahharhareharharharharharhar

Are you ALL as DUMB as this pair of clueless Dumbfucks ?

No, don't answer that !

*LOLOLOL*

MALE sperm ! MWaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahhar

Please, tell us all how "MALE sperm" differs from
errrrrrmmmm.......FEMALE sperm ?

*ROTFFLMFAOAYAPMFP*


subject: UNDEMOCRATIC TURKEY:THE SHITHOLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST

text:
Why haven't you lynched yourself to your boyfriends penis yet Sean
O'Kilfoyle?
I'm so sick and tired of you being a pretentious faggot


author: Panta Rhei

text:
Seanie The Grikslapper writes:

Desperately trying to distract now, Weenie Beanie? YOU wanted to know what
male cum and male smegma tastes like and similar things. That's the point!
That's what's it all about: that you finally came out as the Turkish homo
queen that you are! But thanks for offering me the opportunity to point
out your true nature once more. <BG>


author: Benny Hinn

text:
Seanie O'Kilfoyle wrote:

Someone should build you a  new asshole.

Andrew


author: Constantin Gogu Melina Brincoveanu

text:
"Benny Hinn" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Thank you for volunteering to do such a "Shitty" task

After carefully considering your resume it was decided that we are
unable to take your application any further

We did however appreciate your ingenuity, it is to your credit that
you correctly identified a GREEK CULTURE newsgroup as "THE" place to
find plenty of willing male sphinchters for your thrusting pole of hot
man-chicken

It is simply unfortunate that you first approached the only Non-Greek
and Hetero man in the group !

Please try this as a viable alternative

http://store1.yimg.com/I/secret-shopping-fun_1838_55402306

Best of luck and Kind Regards


text:
Constantin Gogu Melina Brincoveanu writes:

Let me guess: that must be you! The guy who asks on usenet what male sperm
and smegma tastes like. What it's like to be pounded by a Romanian and how
Kurdish sperm feels on your face! All archived by Google!!

Now, your sudden retreat shows that you are not only a psychotic Turkish
homo queen, but also a fearful, psychotic, little chicken! Guess what: no
one's surprised! <BG>


author: M Winther

subject: The foundations of morality

text:
"The foundations of morality"

Must morality be rooted in the Bible, or more generally, in a worldview
of faith, or does morality depend on "common sense", as is the claim of
"Humanist associations" and atheists of different schools of thought.

It boils down to the conflict between the spiritual worldview and the
ideology of materialistic physicalism, embraced by the atheists. A
scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and
psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the
human soul. It implies that the scientific paradigm is not quite
adequate as a worldview on its own. For instance, medieval paintings
have a value perspective in which important persons look larger than
others. This is a moral perspective that is equally relevant as the
optical perspective, and it is not a sign that medieval man was
ignorant. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews
that aren't quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be
brought to completion by their counterpart.

The medieval painter wasn't realistic in the optical sense, but neither
are today's scientistic materialists realistic in the moral sense.
That's why there is today no morality of the heart. People instead
follow ideological tenets which they have programmed into their heads.
This gives rise to an awkward and hypocritical ethics which is neither
rooted in the heart nor in the instincts. The consequences are very
destructive. For instance, empathy is today viewed as the function by
which you donate money to the poor people of the world, to subsidize the
growth of vegetative and meaningless human life. This is a robotic
definition of empathy. In truth, empathy is the feeling you have for
creatures in your vicinity, including your cat and your pot plants.

The distribution of material resources to people who don't deserve it is
by the atheists viewed as the epitome of goodness, which shows that
physicalism and atheism cannot function as a groundwork of morality. The
moral perspective comes skewed, perverted, and robotic. The
materialistic form of goodness has in the end evil consequences, because
it is not founded in the heart, nor in our natural instincts. It is
merely a product of the intellect. The foremost example is Marxism,
which was created during an epoch in the 19th century when suffering due
to poverty and inhumane working conditions was immense. The appalling
situation was documented by Friedrich Engels and Charles Dickens.

But Marxist goodness was merely a product of the intellect. The ideal of
goodness was "from each according to his ability, to each according to
his needs". Atheists, Socialists and Communists programmed this tenet
into their heads, aiming to do good, but the result was the opposite. It
gave rise to the greatest evil and suffering in world history. Many
people still believe in this tenet in some form. According to the
American Declaration of Freedom, every person should have equal
opportunities to build a good life of their own, but they do not have
the right to have all their needs satisfied, which is a Marxist
doctrine.

As soon as we program ideological tenets into our heads, and stop
listening to our heart, we draw the wrong conclusions. Suddenly we start
thinking that millions of Third World people have the right to immigrate
to our country, and with time take over our country, causing the demise
of our civilization. But if we listen to our heart, we realize that it's
not right to give away our country and undermine the civilization that
we have inherited from our ancestors.

The conclusion is that atheistic morals don't work, because it is based
on mere materialistic premises, just as Marxism.

The biblical creation story is another bone of contention. Richard
Dawkins and the British Humanist Association repudiate it as
unscientific. But it is relevant in the same sense as the value
perspective of the medieval painter. The biblical creation story relates
a truth that is complementary to scientific truth. The creation that
took place before man's emergence on the sixth day, is handled
concisely. It took only a couple of days. The underlying message is that
history only began at the origin of human consciousness, at the day when
we became modern human beings. If the whole timeline is laid down,
mankind only emerges in the last minutes, from a geological perspective.
Although it is historically true, it doesn't relate a truthful picture
of this remarkable event. In a sense, the emergence of human ego
consciousness is a world-creating event. Only at this moment there is
full awareness of creation. Only at this point, when Adam and Eve opened
their eyes, God begins to truly relate to his creation. So, from a
religious perspective, this is where history begins.

What took place before, such as the age of dinosaurs, etc., can't really
compare with the emergence of the human ego, which is the greatest
marvel in the history of the universe. The religious authors had a
different perspective than the mere scientific. What if the earth is the
only place in the universe where an ego-consciousness has developed? It
means that the earth remains at the center of the cosmos, not
geographically but morally. Viewed from this perspective, the biblical
creation story is highly relevant. From the standpoint of faith, history
before man can be summarized as five days of divine creation. The
authors of the Pentateuch conveyed the spiritual truth, since history
only begins at the moment when we become aware of God. So remarkably
important is this event. God sees himself through his relation to man,
and so mankind mirrors God. The notion that man was created in the image
of God relates an important truth. Had they written about the historical
and geological truth, things would get the wrong proportions.

Of course, what perspective you are brought up with is highly relevant
to the moral development of the individual and of society. In certain
quarters of life, the scientific paradigm is unable to give us the right
perspective, and things are given the wrong proportions. What is
insignificant from the perspective of the human soul is blown out of
proportion, whereas what really matters, namely the improvement of the
individual soul, is deemed insignificant by comparison with material
betterment and the maximization of the human population on earth.

That's why the scientific paradigm, despite being a success story, is
deficient. In the end, it must be complemented by a spiritual paradigm
that sees things differently. It should be possible for the two
paradigms to exists side by side, if they both give up their ambition of
world hegemony. A scientist must realize that there is some sense to the
mythological creation stories and a spiritual worldview. On the other
hand, creationists must realize that the scientific version of creation
is unshakable scientific truth. It should be possible for two complete
worldviews to exist side by side, while giving due admission to the
alternative worldview. They are not competing worldviews anymore, but
alternative aspects of reality. This is called complementarity.

Mats Winther


author: DonH

subject: Re: The foundations of morality

text:
"M Winther" <[email]> wrote in message
news:509682fe$0$4129$[email]...

# Lots of lovely words, justifying a preconceived conclusion : the relevance
of Religion.
   True, Science is about facts of our natural world, but one finding of
science is: that Man is a Social Animal.  Our ethics derive from that, be
they based on Religion, Marxism, Humanism, or Capitalism (dog-eat-dog).
   Traditional Religion is obsolete in that its cosmology has been
superseded by that of Science, and its primitive morality (Ten Commandments)
supplemented by all the laws, democracy, justice, and politics, since.
   Yes, modern ethics is distorted by economics, and we are forced into
competition with each other by capitalism, when co-operation would be our
natural tendency.
    Socialism is the answer, but will global Plutocracy allow it?
    As Eurotopia demonstrates, Austerity isn't working; nor is Pax
Americana, and fundamentalist Islam is no answer either.
    As for Art, and the Old Masters, portrait painting was the only way of
preserving a likeness (with sculpture) prior to photography, and we have no
way of objectively assessing the Mona Lisa, if we can't compare the result
with the original (person).
    Cynics will note that Rise of Modern Art occurred with advent of
Photography.


subject: Re: The foundations of morality

text:
The fact remains that the scientific paradigm studies nature and its laws as
wholly independent of the human soul. Prior to this, people thought that
calamities would happen if they had kicked over the traces, for instance. So
there was a connection between the soul and the universe. The  autonomy of
the material world is central to science. There is no magics anymore. That's
why science is unfitted for matters pertaining to the human soul, as it can
only relate to the world objectively. The subjective relation is equally
important, which means that the spiritual paradigm is not obsolete. Science
can take us a long way towards an understanding of the world and the human
condition, but in the end it proves inept since it cannot take into account
moral, spiritual, and psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without
relation to the human soul.

So we must adopt a complementarian perspective of the world, which I have
suggested in my articles The Complementarian Self and Critique of
Synchronicity, and elsewhere. We must accept both worldviews although they
are mutually exclusive. This is called complementarity, a paradoxical
principle invented by Niels Bohr. He suggested that it be used outside the
field of quantum physics, which is what I am trying to do now.
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/compself.htm
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/synchronicity.htm

Mats Winther

"DonH"  wrote in message
news:Ulyls.688$[email]...

news:509682fe$0$4129$[email]...

they based on Religion, Marxism, Humanism, or Capitalism (dog-eat-dog).
   Traditional Religion is obsolete in that its cosmology has been
superseded by that of Science, and its primitive morality (Ten Commandments)
supplemented by all the laws, democracy, justice, and politics, since.
   Yes, modern ethics is distorted by economics, and we are forced into
competition with each other by capitalism, when co-operation would be our
natural tendency.
    Socialism is the answer, but will global Plutocracy allow it?
    As Eurotopia demonstrates, Austerity isn't working; nor is Pax
Americana, and fundamentalist Islam is no answer either.
    As for Art, and the Old Masters, portrait painting was the only way of
preserving a likeness (with sculpture) prior to photography, and we have no
way of objectively assessing the Mona Lisa, if we can't compare the result
with the original (person).
    Cynics will note that Rise of Modern Art occurred with advent of
Photography.


author: Andy Wainwright

subject: Re: The foundations of morality

text:
Socialism, including Communism, Fascism and Islamism has a fundemental flaw.

It can be summed up by the saying "convince a man against his will,
leave him of the same opinion still". Imposing values on people doesn't
work in the long term. Quite the opposite in fact, taking away choice
lessens citizens' abilities to make important life and moral choices for
themselves. More laws, worse behaviour. In fact it's known that those
brought up with a draconian, closed sense of sexual values are more
likely to be sex offenders.

Evidence suggest it's much better to build a government around people
than try to fit people around a government.

There does indeed exist a universal morality independant of all human
cultures. It is simply to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Take the crime of murder- almost everybody believes such an act is
criminal, and most murders get caught, due to public support for such a
law. Same with theft. Same with phsyical and sexual assault.

However, when you make silly laws like what you can grow in your garden,
put in your cigarette or which hole you can poke your penis in, these
laws are very poorly enforced and tend to be used for political rather
than criminal reasons. Much easier for a bent- corrupt- politician to
persecute gays - homosexuals - thus deflecting the attention from his
own moral failings. Ditto drugs.

Notably sex and drug laws have been used extensively against the
artistic community. The far left and far right both hate artists because
they mix with different classes and cultures, thus damaging a corrupt
politician's ability to turn one faction against another and divide and
rule.


author: His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits of the Jungle

subject: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
You know, I hate teasers, women teasers or religious teasers. I want
the goods, and I want them now.

This is the definition of WOMEN TEASERS:

"A woman teaser is one that is emotionally empty inside. They flirt
with men to get some kind of approval, that they can't get from
themselves."

It ain't nice, you know. I even I have a t-shirt that says, "DO NOT
TEASE THE MONKEY!" that says it all.

God is a different animal altogether though: He promises you Paradise
in the "afterlife," when you are dead! Isn't that teasing?

They are constantly playing with the mind of the monkey, teasing the
monkey and that could have grave consequences... The monkey may start
throwing shit without warning!

http://www.zazzle.com/dont_tease_the_monkey_tshirt-235055204051654433

Anyway here are some nice teasers dancing for you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTnojPhLbXY&feature=related

---------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION


subject: Re: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
On Nov 2, 9:22 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free Spirits
of the Jungle" <[email]> wrote:

Did you ever think that maybe you have some big misconceptions
regarding God  ?     God is wanting to give you a fulfilled meaningful
life NOW  and give you THE BEST  later when you are living with him
forever.   It starts now with accepting his free gift to have your
many sins totally forgiven and removed because of what Christ did for
you on the cross....and then continues with you wanting more of God by
growing in him , learning more about him,  loving him, serving him and
others.   After this brief earthly life, you STILL go on living ...and
only your physical body is dead.   God grants what yhou wanted while
here on earth : Greater distance from him or greater closeness. Its US
who choose and he grants it.  So,  what do you want to choose ?  A few
earthly years of living however you like , or,  admitting youve lived
wrongly thus far but are willing to change and finish out your life in
love and respect for God ?   You choose, he grants. Only for all of
eternity.


author: Randolf Richardson (Lumber Cartel, local 42

subject: Re: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:20:58 -0700, Dimwit <Dave> wrote:

	I really like that this question comes from someone who goes by the name
"Dimwit."  =D


author: Dimwit Dave

subject: Re: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT), "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

Did you ever think? At all?


author: Terry

subject: Re: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT), "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

Hey!  I've heard this line before!!  From James Huber...
------------------------------------------
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me:   "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:   "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me:   "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave
town."

Me:   "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the
money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me:   "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got
the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and I'm sure she got the money."

Me:   "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
.......


subject: Re: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
On Nov 2, 11:18 am, "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

A sign on this bus said, "Beware of swindlers who ask you for
'something valuable' now in exchange for some reward later."

In the case of religion that something valuable is your whole life
invested into it.


author: Virgil

subject: Re: Why God is such a teaser?

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Did YOU ever think that absolutely everyone MUST have such
misconceptions?

Even if there were gods, for which there is still no objective
unequivocal evidence, there would still  be no guaranteed lines of
communication from such gods to humanity by which to garner the truth
about such gods.


author: Raymond Karczewski

subject: When A Christ Speaks -- Who Listens?

text:
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***

When A Christ Speaks -- Who Listens?

     My oppressed Brothers and Sisters both here in America and abroad,
this Christ says: In the dark days ahead which threaten the continued
existence of this Constitutional Republic and/or your way of life
regardless of where you live in the World, understand that you are your
own SAVIOUR.

DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!

An armed populace is the greatest security from GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.

Our Founding Father understood it. Why have you forgotten it?

                                Ray Karczewski


author: Patrick L. Humphrey

subject: Re: When A Christ Speaks -- Who Listens?

text:
Raymond Karczewski <[email]> writes:

In your case, not even the FBI...

--PLH, shut up and pay the ticket, already


author: Stephen P Vanier

text:
*****SPV....Ray, when you place yourself in Jesus' Shoes you are saying, "I
am as good as Jesus and he was nothing much because we all are Christ."

This is ego.  You can't admit that people like Jesus and myself are better
than you.  Shit Ray, look at your life compared to mine.  You haven't done
shit and what is worse you don't know shit.

Now if a maggot like you, a real hypocrite, a cop for 30 years that finally
gets a ticket and can't pay it.  You are a guy that can dish it out but
can't take the heat.  You are what is known as pathetic.

So if a maggot like you is Christ then everyone is Christ and Jesus climbed
the cross for nothing.

This is the truth.  This is why your shit don't fly.

"Raymond Karczewski" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Chas. M. Bee

text:
Stephen P Vanier wrote:

   Perhaps Jesus "climbed" the cross *specifically* so that we all could
be Christ (you know, spotless, incorruptible, etc.).  Why not try
looking at it that way and see what you get, instead of making up a
bunch of crap Ray didn't say, and basing your whole rant on it.  =P


author: Atlas M. Schacter

text:
C'mon, SPeeVee, you aren't any more "like Jesus" then this guy you're
attacking is.  You offhandedly write of "people like Jesus and myself"
as if it's a known fact instead of a self-evident delusion.  You fail
to even ask an interesting question, like "Why would a self-professed
Christ concern himself with the fate of any nation-state,
Constitutional Republic or otherwise?"  If we give the Biblical
accounts any credence, we have Jesus preaching peace and advising
turning the other cheek.  Thousands would have taken up the sword to
save Jesus from execution, but he wouldn't allow that.  Now we have
this ex-cop shouting "DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS."  There's an
intriguing and odd dissonance there and you're too obsessed with
promoting your ridiculous "Stephen Christ" self-image to even notice
it.

"Stephen P Vanier" <[email]> wrote in message news:<x9WI7.756$[email]>...


author: gordon

text:
"Atlas M. Schacter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Maybe he knows something you don't and he's protecting his 'source'... or
maybe he's coming from your 'anything goes' MO.


author: Svanier

subject: Atlas take a look at this post and consider what I say.

text:
Atlas M. Schacter wrote:

********SPV......How would you know?  How many Jesus' do you know?  Why
would even think you know what Christ is or isn't.

 You offhandedly write of "people like Jesus and myself"

********SPV.....How do you know it isn't fact?  Why would you say,
"self-evident delusion".  Did Jesus have this self-evident delusion also?

  You fail

*********SPV....This is not true.  Maybe he had 12 followers and a few
of them turned traitor.  Sound framilar?


text:
"gordon" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Of course he is, his "source" is his delusion and he protects it with
all the zeal of a samurai defending his daimyo.  Mr. Karczewski's post
was just a convenient oneupsmanship opportunity against another
self-declared "Christ."  This is just SPeeVee's twisted way of
implementing The First Commandment!

Ain't it great how pretty much anything can be posted and/or
contradicted?  That's Usenet for you, "anything goes!"


author: Mah jeh mah

text:
you don't seem so liberal with this with anyone but SPV

gordon wrote:


subject: Re: Atlas take a look at this post and consider what I say.

text:
Svanier <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Does the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" have any
meaning for you?

Maybe half a dozen, all either Mexicans or Puerto Ricans.

The "is" part is a tad tricky, the "isn't" is a slam dunk, that is,
it's self-evident.

Because that's what it is.

Probably not, but I wasn't around back them so I'll leave that issue
alone.

You really are an idiot.  A radical religious reformer with only
twelve followers would not constitute enough of a threat to either
Roman rule or the Temple establishment in Jerusalem to warrant
execution.  Jesus may have had only twelve disciples, but he had
thousands of followers, enough to attract the attention of both Roman
and Jewish authorities.  The canonical Gospels and the independent
account of Josephus agree on the matter of Jesus' extraordinary
popularity at the time of his death.


text:
Svanier <[email]> wrote:

This statement is meaningless coming from a man who cannot even be
honest with himself.

I (like everyone else here with the possible exception of Gordon) know
what "a Christ" is _not_ like, the other issue is more subtle.  Allow
me to give you a hint about the term "self-evident": it is
self-evident that rain does not fall up, it is similarly self-evident
that you are an untreated mental patient and not "a Christ."  Nobody
has to explain a self-evident fact other than to someone with some
sort of perceptual or intelligence deficit.


text:
****SPV.....This Atlas is a strange cat.  He says, "Anything goes."  And
so that is nice.  So he says this and he says that and that is fine.
But if you say, "I am christ."  He just goes off the deep end with
slander and sick shit.  Judi said she was the Heir to Jesus Christ.
Brucie Morgenhiem says they were both Christ.  But that is OK.  But when
I do it then he is somehow upset.  Why is it ok for Brucie and Judi and
anyone else but I tell you I am Enlightened and he throws a sissy fit?
Isn't that weird?  Isn't he weird?  And to lie and lie about me, isn't
that weird?

Atlas M. Schacter wrote:


text:
"Atlas M. Schacter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<[email]>...

How do you know they aren't Christs?  What do you know about their claims?

No Atlas... that's you.  Don't you remember telling me that with you
'anything goes'?  I'm just following your lead... seeing what your dance is
all about.


text:
Atlas M. Schacter wrote:

******SPV.....I asked you an honest question.  Tell us how you would
know, or admit that you do not know.  Right now you are pretending to
know.  What makes you think you know what a Christ is like?


text:
Atlas M. Schacter wrote:

****SPV....You are looking in the mirror talking about yourself.  You
know that you have never read anything where I was diagnosed bi-polar.

So you are not honest with yourself and thus are not honest with
yourself.  What do you think this glaring error on your part means?


text:
*******SPV.....It is self-evident that you do not know what a Christ is like.  It is

self-evident like rain does not fall upwards.

Your arguments are childish.  You claim to know and I ask you, "How do
you know, and you are just childish in answer."


text:
"Atlas M. Schacter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You're walking a fine line here Atlas.

As if you aren't dishonest with yourself...

Gordon doesn't 'think' like everyone else for very good reason Atlas.  You
say you know what is 'not' like Christ... well do you know that you are
'not' like Christ... so when you are like Christ like then please come share
with us something other than your smoke & mirrors bullshit.

  Allow


text:
****SPV......You rant and rave and you don't know what makes a Christ or
not.  You just are so jealous you can't answer a single quesiton.  Then
you fall back on this mental patient bullshit.  What makes you think I
am a mental patient that needs treatment?

All we really know is that you can't answer the question and you are a
lying rat fink.  But wait.  The truth is coming out.

gordon wrote:


author: ~~~AllisonWonderland~~~

text:
Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AllisonWonderland~~~:
Now, now, now, Queenie... don't get your panties all in a bunch! You are
just getting upset over nothing.

Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AW~~~:
Quesiton? Is that a sub atomic particle found in cheese? :)

Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AW~~~:
Well, for starters, being as upset as you obviously are at a fucking
sock puppet isn't exactly what I would call being in the best of mental
health.

Look Queenie, I've said before that you have probably had something
"strange" happen to your psyche... You claim that it is some kind of
enlightenment. But to be honest with you, just as soon as you started
cleaning yourself up, getting off the dope, starting to deal with the
major issues in your life, your son, your career, your education, etc.,
you started getting over it. Now you are almost (but not quite) back to
being the ordinary, mundane, pedestrian, average puke that is concerned
with money, money, money, health, and more money.

Welcome back... almost. I for one will watch with great interest to see
what you do with and how you handle what potential you have left. It's
just kind of a sad thing for you to have put it off till you were over
the hill. Still... this IS the first day of the rest of your life.

And in addition too... I have talked with Gordon about you. I sincerely
hope that once you have finally come to your senses, that we can all
look back on all this and have a good laugh. I know that I get a kick
out of your fercockta antics, but watching you clown around isn't
something that has much of a shelf life anymore.

If you ever decide to get real, I'll be the first to applaud and
congratulate. Till then, I've GOT to make fun of you. It's the only way
that I can keep from crying about the way you're squandering your
resistance with your pocketful of mumbles.

Are you sure you weren't hit in the head too many times?

Now get some sleep... tomorrow's a new day.


text:
****SPV....I am getting sick of this shit anyway.

First, I need to lose some weight.  So maybe I take a few months off to
just exercise and not eat.

I just can't believe people would rat fink you.  That is so strange of
behavior.  You know you can pull this type of shit and people go postal
all the time.  I had that one guy drive 1,200 miles because he just
thought I was fucking with him.


text:
Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AllisonWonderland~~~:
And now you know how you made many others feel.

Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AW~~~:
Just stop eating like you're eating. All this meat with grease, bacon
with fat, cheese and the other shit you consume. It's NOT good for you.
Your digestive tract is too long. Humans are not designed to eat meat.
It takes too long for it to go from your mouth to you anus. Inbetween
those two orifices it decays, rots, and putrifies at 98.6 degrees f. Now
I know that you like the way it makes your hand and farts smell, but it
isn't good for you. You keep this way of eating up, and you'll just get
fat!

Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AW~~~:
Baaaaaaaad idea. That will just serve to unbalance an already
precariously over loaded system.

Let me give you a hint... Eat in the morning that which receives the
rays of the sun in the morning (fruits and veggies that are shaded at
mid day). Eat at mid day that which receives the rays of the sun at mid
day (fruits and veggies that are not shaded at mid day). Eat in the
evening that which receives the rays of the sun in the evening (the same
as in the morning). Eat at night that which doesn't receive the rays of
the sun (roots, legumes, nuts, etc.).

Drink lots of water. Cut out alcohol, sugar, and nicotine. And remember,
everything you eat, drink, inhale, and absorb through the skin
eventually goes through your liver!

Queenie bin FrootLoop:

~~~AW~~~:
And so now you know how it feels. PAC thought you were fucking with him
because in actuality, you were fucking with him. You think that others
are fucking with you because in actuality others are fucking with you.
Now you can let it destroy you or you can get over it and get on with
it.

Maybe if you didn't spend so much of your time being such a little,
ugly, bald-headed, P-R-I-C-K that "almost" everyone wouldn't fuck with
you the way they do. I've told you this before, but would you listen to
me? Nooooooooooooo!

Anyway, I thought I told you to get some sleep. Don't make me have to
come over there! :)

Heh heh heh heh


author: james g. keegan jr.

text:
US Force-Feeding Prisoners in Torture Camp
    By Marjorie Cohn
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Monday 19 February 2006

    Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Commission reported
that the violent force-feeding of detainees by the US military at its
Guantnamo prison camp amounts to torture.

    More than a third of the prisoners held there have refused food
to protest being held incommunicado for years with no hope of
release. They have concluded that death could not be worse than the
living hell they are enduring. Attorney Julia Tarver's client
Abdul-Rahman told her "of his determination to die and said that,
'now, after four years in captivity, life and death are the same,'"
Tarver wrote in a sworn declaration filed in federal district court.

    Yousef Al Shehri, another of Tarver's clients, was taken prisoner
by the US military while he was still a juvenile. Both clients
described being force-fed by the guards. Tarver wrote in her
declaration: "Yousef was the second detainee to have an NG [nasal
gastric] tube inserted into his nose and pushed all the way down his
throat and into his stomach, a procedure which caused him great pain.
Yousef was given no anesthesia or sedative for the procedure;
instead, two soldiers restrained him - one holding his chin while the
other held him back by his hair, and a medical staff member
forcefully inserted the tube in his nose and down his throat. Much
blood came out of his nose. Yousef said he could not speak for two
days after the procedure; he said he felt like a piece of metal was
inside of him. He said he could not sleep because of the severe pain."

    When Yousef and others "vomited up blood, the soldiers mocked and
cursed at them, and taunted them with statements like 'look what your
religion has brought you,'" Tarver wrote.

    After two weeks of this treatment, the forced feeding stopped for
five days. Then, guards began to insert larger, thicker tubes into
the detainees' noses. "These large tubes," Tarver wrote, "the
thickness of a finger, [Yousef] estimated - were viewed by the
detainees as objects of torture. They were forcibly shoved up the
detainees' noses and down into their stomachs. Again, no anesthesia
or sedative was provided to alleviate the obvious trauma of the
procedure. When the tube was removed, it was even more painful, and
blood came gushing out of him. He fainted, and several of the other
detainees also lost consciousness . They were told that this tube
would be inserted and removed twice a day every day until the hunger
strike ended. Yousef described the pain as 'unbearable.'"

    Both of Tarver's clients independently identified physicians as
participants in this procedure. "The guards took NG tubes from one
detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, re-inserted it into
the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were re-inserted,
the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from other
detainees remaining on the tubes," Tarver wrote in her declaration.

    The UN commission confirmed that "doctors and other health
professionals are participating in force-feeding detainees." It cites
the Declarations of Tokyo and Malta, the World Medical Association,
and the American Medical Association, which prohibit doctors from
participating in force-feeding a detainee, provided the detainee is
capable of understanding the consequences of refusing food.

    International Committee of the Red Cross guidelines state:
"Doctors should never be party to actual coercive feeding. Such
actions can be considered a form of torture and under no
circumstances should doctors participate in them on the pretext of
saving the hunger striker's life."

    The Bush administration is force-feeding the hunger strikers for
political reasons. If any of the Guantnamo prisoners dies as a result
of the hunger strike, it would be embarrassing to the Bush
administration, which claims it treats the detainees "humanely."

    The Human Rights Commission called on the US government to ensure
that the authorities at Guantnamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee
who is capable of forming a rational judgement and is aware of the
consequences of refusing food. "The United States Government should
invite independent health professionals to monitor hunger strikers,
in a manner consistent with international ethical standards,
throughout the hunger strike," the commission recommended.

    In its report, the commission also recommended that the US
government "close the Guantnamo Bay detention facilities without
further delay. Until the closure, and possible transfer of detainees
to pre-trial detention facilities on United States territory, the
Government should refrain from any practice amounting to torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ."

    The commission further said that "the United States Government
should ensure that all allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment are thoroughly investigated by an
independent authority, and that all persons found to have
perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the
highest level of military and political command, are brought to
justice."

    Not surprisingly, the Bush administration rejected the
commission's report, saying that the rapporteurs who prepared it did
not interview people at the prison camp. The commission relied on
interviews with former detainees, public documents, media repots,
lawyers and questions answered by the US government. The Bush
administration invited the rapporteurs to visit the Guantnamo camp,
but refused to allow them to speak with the prisoners.

    The overwhelming majority of the prisoners our government is
holding at Guantnamo are not terrorists or jihadists. Many were
picked up in Afghanistan and other countries and sold to the US
military by bounty hunters. Of the roughly 500 men there, only 9 have
been designated for trial on criminal charges.

    The US government's treatment of prisoners at Guantnamo is an
international travesty and a national disgrace.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022006J.shtml


author: J Young

subject: Re: US Force-Feeding Prisoners in Torture Camp

text:
"james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The best solution for everyone involved would be to just let these cretins
starve themselves to death.


author: [redacted]

text:
J Young wrote:

Those "little cretins" have, in fact, been proven innocent, as have
those incarcerated at the 5 torture camps throughout Europe and Africa.

Forced acts of sodomy are war crimes, mate.


author: osprey

text:
J Young wrote:

You can't do that.  Speaking as a professional in Corrections, I have
seen this happen often.  Many times offenders will go on a hunger
strike.  Most times, it doesn't last long.  We will let them go so long
and eventually it comes time to take medical action and you have to
force feed them.  You can not let them just die. Not only would it be
wrong, it would land you in one heck of a law suit.  I know, speaking
for myself, the moment an offender tells me that he is on a hunger
strike I will make a note of it in a log book, notify medical, and
begin the paperwork necessary.  We then take a log on if he ate or not,
this goes on for all three shifts.
Now, up to a point, you can not FORCE them to eat. If they don't want
to, that's their choice. However, when it reaches a point where their
life is in danger and they are suffering because of this..then you have
the obligation and the duty to intervene and get medical attention.
They will apply the methods used for force feeding.

But you can't just let them starve.


text:
J Young wrote:

I think this is an excellent sentiment.

You should tell us more about your views on Iraqi Civilians.


text:
J Young wrote:

I agree with your sentiments.

Why don't you tell us more about your views regardinh afghani civilians?


text:
J Young wrote:

I agree with your sentiments.

Why don't you tell us more about your views regarding afghani civilians?


text:
osprey wrote:

"We don't punish, at least we pretend to not punish, esp. when we are
trying to play the war crimes game with teh English.."

from: a SOJA Redneck


author: Shawn Hirn

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "J Young" <[email]> wrote:

I guess you never heard of Jesus Christ and his Golden Rule, or that
little commandment in the Bible that says "Thou shalt not kill"?


text:
"osprey" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
cretins

Although you are probably correct, I just can't conjure feelings of sympathy
for these mutts. Perhaps if the ACLU were pro-American, they'd find a way to
legally allow them to starve themselves. As a pro-lifer, I would never
support our government executing them.


text:
"Shawn Hirn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
cretins

I didn't write that the U.S. should kill them, I wrote "just let these
cretins starve themselves to death." The fact that they will burn in hell
for sinning (suicide), in addition to dying a horrible death, suits me fine.


author: Ray Fischer

text:
J Young <[email]> wrote:

Because you're an murderous anti-Islam bigot.

Perhgaps if you weren't anti-American you wouldn't treat the
Constitution and human rights with such contempt.