text:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:53:07 -0700, Baxter wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosmoclimatology-

I cited the paper where Svensmark explained how they didn't state his
hypothesis correctly - they used cosmic rays of all energies instead of
just high energy, they used a proxy wrong, and all that. You didn't read
it, you couldn't understand it if you tried to read it, and your entire
view of "science" is to believe what ever propaganda some asshole is
passing off as "science" that fits your politics.


author: Marvin the Martian

subject:
Re: God kicks U.S. ass in a major way. And she ain't jus' shittin'
 around!  Can you say, Fukushima Part Deux?

text:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:57:20 -0400, Sancho Panza wrote:

According to the Mann's hockey stick predictions, we're supposed to be
cooked by now. According to Hansen's predictions, we're supposed to be
cooked by now.

We're not cooked. Indeed, when the data is cleaned up by removing the UHI
effects, what little warming they "predicted" is only 25% of their stated
value.

Svensmark and other Danish scientist predicted the recent cooling before
it happened over a decade ago. Svensmark's theory is consistent with
climate proxies as far back as the proxies go. The AGW "scientist" can't
even predict a decade. Guys like Baxter don't know how ironic it is that
he's claiming the AGW "scientist" have reproducible results and a
hypothesis that predicts. No, every single one of their computer models
FAILED to predict. Every single damned one of them.


text:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:41:38 -0700, Baxter wrote:

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

And they're all wrong, just like his fradulant peers.

AGW gets funded as long as they scare the shit out of the weak minded and
ignorant Baxter's of the world.


text:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:01:37 -0700, Baxter wrote:

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

If the ocean got warmer, would the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2
in the ocean raise, or lower.

Take your time. It's a very simple lower division chemistry equation.

But you're right, your "reputable scientist" (aka the lying assholes who
tell you what you think) don't claim that simple chemistry works. :-D

They claim that a 14 micrometer band of CO2 that is totally blocked can
block more energy. Dumb as hell and moronic anti-science, but it is the
crap that makes up your religion.

No, it doesn't. There has not been any warming for the last 16 years,
while CO2 has gone up.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-
problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html>

Mind you, the above is ignoring that the warming shown is using data with
a systematic bias for warming.

<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/07/Wattspic2.png>


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 18:52:39 -0700, Baxter wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/bs

Like I said, they used a straw man argument and Svensmark proved their
lies in the paper "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges".

You don't know enough about the subject to recognized a crank science
website.


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:56:11 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:

in-
anthropogenic-global-warming

The problem with socialist, is that they believe science has to agree
with them. Take Einstein and his telling God that he can't play dice and
all that. Problem is, existence is God's favorite crap game and Einstein
had his head up his ass when it came to the statistical nature of quantum
mechanics.

Same thing with AGW: They intentionally use data (the data they have is
contaminated by the UHI effect. Throw out the bad data and the warming is
down to just 25% of what they claim), bad chemistry (the CO2 comes from a
warming ocean, any CO2 added by humans would be taken out of the system
due to equilibrium effects), idiot physics that claim a violation of
conservation of energy, a failed hypothesis that they refuse to reject
(they ignore that CO2 has increased while temperatures have decreased),
idiot comparisons of the CO2 level on top of a live volcano on a tropical
island teaming with life in the middle of the Pacific ocean with CO2
levels found in ice cores of a glacier a hundred thousand years old.
Yeah. Right. They actually DO that!) and they ignore competing theories
that DO predict.

Science? Not from these morons. They're out for politics. "Science is on
our side!" Yeah, right.

Then the dumbshits like Shitzer here say that given evolution ergo AGW.
How fucking stupid is that? Any idiot can see that the two have nothing
to do with one another. Their stupid argument seems to go that since SOME
religious people reject evolution for their voodoo beliefs, that ALL
people they disagree with MUST be anti-science and that they, themselves,
are IMMUNE from being anti-science.  Mind you, these socialist idiots
believe in a "magic" form of evolution, where all humans have EXACTLY the
same average and standard deviation of intelligence. Everything else is
subject to genetic drift and local natural selection pressures, but NOT
intelligence OR behavioral inclinations, those are all FIXED by the Ghost
of Karl Marx or some dumbass thing. All the data says otherwise, but they
insist that is due to "invisible" racism that cannot be observed or
measured. What a crock of non-science!!

Nope. People all over the political spectrum HATE science, and substitute
whatever they want to believe.


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:46:21 -0700, Baxter wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in-
anthropogenic-global-warming

Look at this! This Baxter thing KNOWS he's a moronic troll and admits he
trolls the newsgroup intentionally! He is admitting he's not here to
discuss, but to be an asshole for the cause of socialism!!

Well done Baxter! You've admitted you have a problem.


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:37:58 -0700, Baxter wrote:

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

I am familiar with the lies your site tells. I've read it before.

You can't refute that which you will not even state. They're using the
same idiot's tactics that you are using where you clip out most of my
argument and take a sentence fragment out of context.

You're not here to convince anyone of anything, you're too busy being a
smug little asshole. Go fart your "opinion" at someone who thinks your
shit doesn't stink.


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:00:23 -0700, Baxter wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in-
anthropogenic-global-warming

Irrelevant and a baseless argumentum ad hominem. His theory makes useful
predictions. AGW isn't even a scientific hypothesis.


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:03:18 -0700, Baxter wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
plants-
henrik-svensmark

IF you had read Svensmark's papers, you'd have recognized your cite as
using a "straw man" fallacy. Svensmark did not argue "solar forcing",
that is a damned lie. Svensmark argued that the length of the solar cycle
determines how far the cosmic rays are attenuated. High energy Cosmic
rays cause cloud formation in the lower atmosphere, which reflect more
sunlight and causes cooling.

Now ask yourself, if the OSS Foundation has to LIE about what Svensmark's
paper say, why do you believe them?

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/
abstract>

Svensmark's detractors and slanderers are not even trying to correctly
state his hypothesis, and they know that the scientific illiterate (read
"Baxter") has no clue as to what he said and can only understand insults,
and will believe what he wants to believe anyway - regardless of science
and fact.


text:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 05:35:38 -0700, Eggs Ackley wrote:

hurricane-s-projected-path.html

First, there is no such thing as Anthropomorphic global warming. That's
non-science fabricated by globalist to scare the masses into surrendering
their rights to everything from choosing what to eat to traveling to
having children. When the data is corrected for the systematic errors,
the real amount of warming is about 1/4 of what they claim, and that's
accounted for by Svensmark's theory.

Second, this is a weak category 1 hurricane, not a magnitude 7 earthquake
with associated tidal wave. They're designed to survive this.

Lastly, these AGW frauds have been predicting stronger hurricanes since
Katrina in 2005, and they've been wrong each and every year. Now, a
hurricane comes along and is barely strong enough to be called a
hurricane, and you think that proves AGW?! Really?


author: Baxter

subject: Re: God kicks U.S. ass in a major way. And she ain't jus' shittin' around!  Can you say, Fukushima Part Deux?

text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No, it's not a "simple solubility problem" - the ocean is full of life that
uses CO2.  And the rate of uptake depends on many factors including local
temperature, wind, currents and upwelling, etc.

<rest of crackpot pseudo-science and invective snipped>


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
This is the sort of BS all the crackpots say when actual scientists review
their work/theories and don't get the same results.


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

it's not a "simple chemistry" thing.  CO2 uptake is quite complex and
involves several factors - some having nothing to do with chemical
reactions.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

IOW, you can't support your claim.  All you can do is double-down on the
bullshit
------------
Claims global warming stopped 15 years ago are based on "cherry-picked" data
and don't account for natural fluctuations in climate, according to climate
scientists responding to an article that appeared Saturday (Oct. 13) in the
British newspaper, The Daily Mail.
http://www.livescience.com/24006-did-global-warming-stop-1997.html
http://news.discovery.com/earth/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.html


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You're handwaving.

Bottom line is that reputable GW scientists thought Svensmark might have
something new until they tried to replicate and apply his claims - and the
whole basis of science is replicability.


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Now that's just bullshit - no reputable scientist is claiming that "the CO2
comes from a  warming ocean" -- in fact, the ocean absorbs a great deal of
the CO2 being produced by man.

Cite?  What are the specifics about this alleged "claim a violation of
conservation of energy" and by whom.

The data says otherwise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8nks7xn

<rest of pseudo-science rambling snipped>


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I'm an anti-troll - you're the troll.


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yawn.

See also:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

"Irrelevant"?!  That Svensmark is a fraud is irrelevant?!!  It would seem to
me to VERY relevant.
-----------
"While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way
from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world
climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues
put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the
evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes
evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases
for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are
correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the
neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long
term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes." Dr. Rasmus
Benestad, Norwegian Meteorological Institute

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Which is "solar forcing"

Now go back and re-read the information at the cite I gave.


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marvin the Martian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

But there is _Anthropogenic_ Global Warming:
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

Svensmark is a fraud.


author: demotards

text:
On 10/30/2012 8:14 AM, Baxter wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio

BAXTURD's PETER METER
|=====|
|     |
|  9  |
|     |                  ,-%/%|
|  6  |              _,-' \//%\
|     |          _,-'       \%/|%
|  3  |       / / )    __,--  /%\
|     |       \__/_,-'%(%  ;  %)%
|  0  |                %\%,   %\
|=====|                   '--%'
__________________________________________________________________________
    "At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
       "I've been around pimps before (as a "slumlord")..."


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Baxter" <[email]> wrote in message
news:k6onad$9kd$[email]...
For a *real* skeptical view of GW, instead of crackpot theories, go here:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/


author: Sancho Panza

text:
On 10/29/2012 9:53 AM, Baxter wrote:

And that doesn't work out too well for the global warming types, does it?


author: Bill Shatzer

text:
Baxter wrote:

Don't bother arguing with the climate change deniers. Like the
creationists, they know what they know and no amount of evidence or
actual fact is going to change their minds.

peace and justice,


text:
On 10/30/2012 8:45 AM, Baxter wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O55aRrvXtio

BAXTURD's PETER METER
|=====|
|     |
|  9  |
|     |                  ,-%/%|
|  6  |              _,-' \//%\
|     |          _,-'       \%/|%
|  3  |       / / )    __,--  /%\
|     |       \__/_,-'%(%  ;  %)%
|  0  |                %\%,   %\
|=====|                   '--%'
__________________________________________________________________________
    "At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
       "I've been around pimps before (as a "slumlord")..."


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <[email]> wrote in message
news:508e9950$0$9804$[email]...
That's like trying to prove Velikovsky's claims.  It's Svensmark who is
making claims that can't be verified.


text:
On 10/28/2012 10:56 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Shatzer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:k6l29b$6sn$[email]...
Think of the Milgram Experiment.


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Shatzer" <[email]> wrote in message
news:k6l29b$6sn$[email]...
With any luck, I can get him to go ballistic - which is off-putting to any
observers.


text:
On 10/29/2012 11:33 AM, Baxter wrote:
Neither can Michael Mann's. And that's the point. Witness the climate
records for the last 16 years.


text:
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks   www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <[email]> wrote in message
news:508ebdca$0$9821$[email]...
On the contrary, Mann is author of more than 140 peer-reviewed and edited
publications.  Do note: "peer-reviewed and edited publications".


text:
On 10/29/2012 1:41 PM, Baxter wrote:
"Peer-reviewed and edited publications" now includes (for you) approval
of discarding unwanted data. In the case of warmists, that is fine and
dandy. In the case of aspartame, no way.


author: wali

subject: Christians are dupes of Jewish propaganda

text:
The god of the chosen people cares only for the chosen people. That's
the way it works out in the real world.


author: Jason E. Hubred

subject: Re: Christians are dupes of Jewish propaganda

text:
wali wrote in message ...

Then why did God allow Egypt to prosper with Joseph's help?


author: tim gueguen

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

I'm curious.  Are you a Muslim?  If so then you too have been duped by
"Jewish propaganda,"  as Islam claims the same spiritual sources as Judaism
and Christianity, recognises the same figures as important etc. etc.

tim gueguen 101867


author: Betty West

text:
[email] (wali) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

++++++++++++>> Betts West replies:

Comparative religion, the very large number of religious approaches
to God from the very beginning of human culture, shows God has a
chosen people - i.e. almost everyone - every nation, clan, tribe and social
group.  The Jews made the serious error in believing the promises
of their concocted (misunderstood) deity Yahweh/el) that they were
somehow the apple of his eye.  Like the Presbyterians/Calvinist they
made the horrific error of thinking God's choice of anyone implies
the rejection of someone else.  Yes, according to human logic if you
turn your face to one person, you automatically turn your back to another.
As if God has a backside or cares one wit about human logic.

To illustrate I pass on this email -

"sandyw" <[email]> wrote in message news:<96tm7.8030$[email]>...

+++++++>> Betts West replies:

I'm on the side that denies Jesus is the 'I AM' of the Old Testament.
The 1st and 2nd century Gnostics Christians actually tended to
regard the Old Testament God per Marcion as a god but an inferior
One compared to the true Ultimate God.

Truly, I see Jesus as our reference for the One True God.  And
not necessarily the Old Testament God who was more a nationalistic
warrior king, as seen in the Old Testament idea of the Messiah.
This Old Testament Messiah, and accompanying God, was the
one Jesus was reluctant to embrace.

Verily, Jesus reveals God but not exactly the Old Testament One.
Perhaps, you could say Jesus is a pointer to God.  But a
revelation/pointer that rejects as much as it accepts of the
doings and personality of Yahwel/El/Elohim of Old Testament
fame.  No wonder, 2000 years ago God thought it time to
upgrade his image and send us Jesus.

This matter is all important for Christianity for it's
now clear that Christianity should brace itself to
jettison any straightforward and extensive identification
of the Christ with the Old Testament's Yahweh. And
do it soon as possible.  The Old Testament God is not my God.

BW


author: PBarker

text:
"tim gueguen"  wrote ...
Judaism

+ Nah, he's a troll.
+ Recognize him by the short message and the numerous newsgroups.


author: oxtail

subject: Re: Simply unacceptable.

text:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:20:26 -0700, jimzorn wrote:

The world has seen what you have done
to your own best students.
We wonder who actually started the riot.


subject: Re: Simply unacceptable.

text:
Why China is wrong?  watch this youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsoc4-QnplY&feature=related

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


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Simply unacceptable.

text:
I know the cult leaders have been in India for fifty years. But their
ancestors brain washed the Tibetans for centuries. Such extensive
conditioning is difficult to eradicate.

Tibetans serfs lived in mortal fear that their Lama masters could
consign them at will to any level of the cold or hot hells. Many
Tibetans still probably believe such superstitions today. I think the
Chinese effort is to eradicate such superstitions.

Not that I believe that Buddhism in general or Tibetan Buddhism in
particular is all bad. Every religion can be used for good or bad
purposes. Christianity, for example was used to justify the crusades
and the inquisition, but I believe it has functioned constructively in
other circumstance.


subject: Re: Unacceptable

text:
There is nobody in China following you around to see what you say or
do.  There are so many Chinese that no one could possibly keep track
of them.

Some Chinese did express mild discontent, such as we do here in
America. They would say things like "I think maybe our government
doesn't tell us everything" just like many people say in America.

I think your opinion is formed by western media rather than by real
experience with the Chinese.

I was saying that they would not give up jobs, education and health
care for independence.

The number of people who are studying English in China is around 300
million, about the same as the population of the US. China now has
more internet users than America. Gradually, as these Chinese begin to
communicate directly with the west, they will tell you themselves that
what you learn from the western media about China is mostly a lie.


subject: Re: Simply unacceptable.

text:
The war is fought against the past slave owners, now settled in India
and around the world,  who have made raids into Tibet, and plotted
with western intelligence agencies to regain their elite position in
Tibet.

What percentage of Chinese feel that a war is being conducted against
them by their government? It's probably less than one percent. The
vast majority of Chinese love their government, can't you see that
from your discussions with them?


author: Jim Walsh

subject: Re: Simply unacceptable.

text:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:55:38 +0800, [email]
wrote
(in article
<[email]>):

No. You can't keep people in a second slavery because once they were enslaved
by the Lamas.

No. Not reasonable. The CCP also prevents Han Chinese from normal human
rights. What excuse do you give for that?

The CCP is a parasite living on the exploitation of the oppressed Chinese
people.


author: OD

subject: Re: Unacceptable

text:
[email] wrote:

Actually there are people that will note your presence if you visit
someone's home.  Also people in hotels noting your coming and going.  And
universities.  But that lessons the more you get away from Beijing.

But one wonders who you really talked to.  Migrant factory workers?  Migrant
construction workers?  Those who have been forced to abandon their home for
new dams or construction projects?  These are the people that governments
are there to protect and whose opinions should matter most.

If your experience of the country wasn't truly complete then was it also
mostly a lie?  No, you just don't have the entire picture.  The media may
not always present a complete picture, but then they do present some harsh
realities to life in China.  Realities that can't be ignored just because
you had a nice time visiting the country.


subject: Re: Unacceptable

text:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:11:02 +0800, [email]
wrote
(in article
<[email]>):

Mostly what I know about the oppression of the Chinese in the PRC comes from
the Chinese themselves.


subject: Re: Simply unacceptable.

text:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:47:05 +0800, [email]
wrote
(in article
<[email]>):

No. The CCP is not fighting a war against people living in India. Were it to
do so, the Indian Army would have something to say.

No. I can't see that the Chinese love their repression. All the evidence I
have seen is that they hate it.


author: mart

subject: Hansel,Gretel aborted by the witches.

text:
Hansel,Gretel and the witches

Once upon a time in the civilized world members of the craft gained
positions of authority through their scheming so that they could serve
their master well. They said to themselves lets pass laws that allow
the murder of the unborn humanbeings, and their master was well
pleased.

Eventually abortion and the freezing(for later implantation of course,
wink) wasn't providing enough of a kick so they decided now that we
can do what we like with the unborn lets make it legal to consume
their body parts because after all we might as well put the unborn to
some use after we finished murdering them, and their master was even
more pleased.

Although they could of put those finances into provided homes for
normal birth children, although they could of got stem cells from the
umbillical cords of the recently born and from the spinal cords of
adults, this would not have pleased their master's design for all
human life. The master's design has to start somewhere and why not
with the human's that don't have a voice yet. Soon laws would be
passed by the craft to allow mercy killings, then those killings that
the authority deems fit especially those that don't worship the master
like those in the craft do.

Judgement day came and God threw all the godless perverted murders
into hell. The godless said; "You can't do that to us because were
good people." The murdered Hansels and Gretels stood up against all
those involved in their murder, directly or indirectly, those godless
murders that said they were 'good people' and said; "Good enough for
hell and your master!"

Isaiah 5:
18 Destruction is certain for those who drag their sins behind them,
tied with cords of falsehood.
19 They even mock the Holy One of Israel and say, "Hurry up and do
something! Quick, show us what you can do. We want to see what you
have planned."
20 Destruction is certain for those who say that evil is good and good
is evil; that dark is light and light is dark; that bitter is sweet
and sweet is bitter.
21 Destruction is certain for those who think they are wise and
consider themselves to be clever.
22 Destruction is certain for those who are heroes when it comes to
drinking, who boast about all the liquor they can hold. 23 They take
bribes to pervert justice. They let the wicked go free while punishing
the innocent.
24 Therefore, they will all disappear like burning straw. Their roots
will rot and their flowers wither, for they have rejected the law of
the Lord Almighty. They have despised the word of the Holy One of
Israel.

Holy Bible, New Living Translation, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc.) 1996.

End time revelation
                     http://mart1963.tripod.com/


author: JonJones

subject: Re: Hansel,Gretel aborted by the witches.

text:
In article <7e8d9a12.0203292133.6ece2501
@posting.google.com>, [email] says...

Come on now Mart, you haven't yet come up with a workable
solution to limit the number of children, I.e., take away
the need for abortion.

Did you how we would just forget?


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

Still looking to murder the unborn are we?

Lets face facts, the western countries with zero and even negative
growth rate do most of the damage, pollution and the destruction on
the earth directly or indirectly(paying third world countries to
destroy their area for materials shipped to them).

It's not so much a people problem as a greed problem.

If resources were put into the third world countries their populations
would start to decrease as well but then we go back to the greed
problem and the selfish western nations.

It's this do what you can get away with mentality which is the
underlying problem that needs addressing.


text:
In article <7e8d9a12.0204031747.67fc4047
@posting.google.com>, [email] says...

Ok, for the sake of an argument, I'll accept that.

But not that. World population is still growing. And, if
the population of the world was 1/10 of what it is today,
everyone would have more - developed and undeveloped
together.

But it did not happen that way.

So, rather than avoiding the issue or arguing it, what is
your solution to limiting population, in the absence of
abortion.


author: Doug

text:
mart wrote:

Really? Interesting theory. So the pollution which is in 3rd world
countries is the fault of the other countries?


text:
JonJones wrote:

How so? I suppose it depends upon what you mean more of.

If there was 1/10 the number of musicians, would we have more music?

If there was 1/10 the number of farmers would there be more food?


text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

Fair enough, and an interesting thought.

The reference was - on my part - to resources. Obviously, I
did not make that point clearly.

Being flippant, I could say having only 1/10 of what passes
for music might not be bad.

Not in total, no. Fewer farmers, better farming techniques,
better care of the land, fewer mouths to feed leads to
better nutrition for everyone, not just a select few.


text:
JonJones wrote:

Aren't the number of CDs available at the local music store a form of
resource as well?

;-) Who could disagree?

But most of those things are independent of the number of people. Better
farming techniques, better care of the land apply even with larger
populations.


author: James Adelman

subject: Re: Mind your p's and q's

text:
Ho Hum wrote on Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:18:08 -0700 in sci.psychology.theory:

You can't say I didn't warn you.

"You observe that you can't see *a* god" is fundamentally different
from "You observe you can't see god."  "You can't see god" implies
at least two things: (i) there is a god, & (ii) you can't see it.
"You can't see a god" does not imply that there is a god, and this
would be the case if there was an invisible god, or there was no god
at all.

see a
be*
universalism*
"There
evidence
logically
no fire
have
trivial,
Hypothesis: There is no fire in this pot-bellied stove.
Observation 1: I burnt my finger when I touched this pot-bellied
stove.

The hypothesis would predict observation 1, but this does not mean
something else would not; one can, for example, burn one's finger on
something that is freezing.

Observation 2: There is no fire in this pot-bellied stove.

If there is in fact some way you can make this observation, it is
still not distinct from the hypothesis.

Observation 3: There is a fire in this pot-bellied stove.

This is a straight-out contradiction, which makes it impossibel for
the hypothesis to be true, but if one could find out so easily there
would be no need for science.  This is simply the complement of the
hypothesis, and so in logic this is trivial because it represents "the
hypothesis is false implies the hypothesis is false."
are
proven
you
no swans
"There are
what
Both can be shown false, but universals cannot be shown true.  The
complement of "there are no deities" is "there are some deities" which
is not a universal and can be shown true (by finding some).


subject: Re: Mind your p's and q's

text:
James Adelman wrote:
Blaise Pascal reasoned on game theoretic grounds that belief in "a
deity that required belief" (as opposed to logical or other proof of its existance)
was justified on the basis of outcomes. Basically amounting to:
you live a more comforting life if you do so regardless of whether
one exists or not.

   http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Pascal.html


author: Ho Hum

subject: Re: Mind your p's and q's

text:
I can't add any more to that than, "Amen."

James Adelman <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
sci.psychology.theory:
not
likely.
of
of
better
invisible
"there
rain.


author: MikeRyder

subject: Operation Chaos

text:
Let's Reignite Operation Chaos Tomorrow

Friends, tomorrow is the day we've been focused on for so long. Let's
make it a great day. Let's reignite Operation Chaos.
As you know, the media relies on exit polling to formulate their news
coverage of Election Day. Likewise, the campaigns make estimations as
the day wears on via exit polls. Lastly, in preparing for the next
election's polling, some pollsters will use exit polling to help them.
We know how well that's gone this year.
I have a hearty suggestion for all of us: seek out exit pollsters.
Find them. Be willing to engage in the exit polling. And lie. Tell the
exit pollsters you voted for Barack Obama. Tell them you are a diehard
liberal. But tell them you voted for Barack Obama.
Then go home and watch the media realize there is something badly
wrong with their data and make them have to watch the results come in
with the rest of us.
Let's give one last hurrah to Operation Chaos.
Update: Jim Geraghty advises me against doing this on the theory that
the exits are going to be leaked early and will show a big Obama lead.
Here's the thing though: this happens every four years. Kerry and Gore
both thought they had it in the bag as a result of the early leaks. So
let's fire back up Operation Chaos and throw the early leaks and raw
data into complete and utter confusion.


author: Carrie

subject: Re: Operation Chaos

text:
On Nov 4, 6:51 pm, MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

   You want people to LIE?
    You are even encouraging it?
   Sounds like a lot of fun (LOL)


subject: Re: Operation Chaos

text:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:12:45 -0800 (PST), Carrie
<[email]> wrote:

Not ME. I forgot to attribute this little ditty. It was written by
some idiot named Erick Erickson,
Monday, November 3, 2008 at 04:38PM CST.


author: ellie

subject: Re: Operation Chaos

text:
On Nov 4, 5:29 pm, MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

It was originally posted on the Conservative blog site RedState.


author: Zakhar

subject: Kadaitcha Man

text:
Kadaitcha Man aka Rick Mather aka rmather posted the original "Raw Bullock's
liver" troll on 25 Jun 2000.

Here's what he wrote on 27 Feb 2002 about it:

============================================

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=adb05cd84f
66800a&seekm=a5jgcu%24tfc%240%40pita.alt.net#link6

I can't find the troll atm, but I once posted a plea for help in the
vegetarian groups. I told them I had a very rare blood disease and that the
doctors had told me the only way I would live was to eat raw bullock's
liver. It had to be raw bullock's liver because there was no other source of
the special protien that would save my life.

I told them that I didn't want to violate my vegetarian principles, yet I
didn't want to die.

All the silly fucks could tell me was to make a decision I was comfortable
with.


author: CaringIsTheFirstStep

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
this is why I was hesitant to entend much compassion.

the question seemed like a hypothetical questions to create a conflict,
rather than a real situation   'if you had to eat meat to survive, what
would you do'  with no productive intent by asking

nice searching work

"Zakhar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ag9fpr$gr8$[email]...
Bullock's
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=adb05cd84f
the
of


author: MEow

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Zakhar" <[email]> writes:

Hm. We have a troll by that name in alt.atheism, but he seems to have
been gone for a while. Could it perhaps be this one? He doesn't sound
the same way at all, but then again - Trolls can and do change a
lot. OTOH, you'd think that he'd be smart enough to change his name,
not to be recognised...


author: Camcompany

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Zakhar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ag9fpr$gr8$[email]...
Bullock's
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=adb05cd84f
the
of
the exception of Dutch LOL. Eat your heart out Dutch - sorry Liver in this
case! Tosser.


author: Graham burnett

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
This is from the alt.tv.big-brother ng where I just had a look...

then


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"CaringIsTheFirstStep" <[email]> wrote in message
news:UdwW8.101049$[email]...

Thanks, it took a few minutes, but was worth it.

Unfortunately Kadaitcha Man is an evil bastard, determined to stir the shit
up wherever he posts. I hope he gets his comeuppance sooner than later.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

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

Yes that's him. He moves about between many groups. He's a shit.


author: Dutch

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Camcompany" <[email]> wrote > >
============================================
with

Ranting on incoherently as usual I see, dickhead.


author: Michelle Fulton

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Graham burnett" <[email]> wrote in message
news:VTZV8.22686$[email]...

That is so pathetic I almost feel sorry for him :-(


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Zakhar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:agf808$2ip$[email]...
shit

Hopefully, he might move a little closer to more caring.   I've been in some
bad places in my life in the past before.

A thing i keep noticing with etter and dutch is their misunderstanding of
veg*ans thoughts.  They assume that ceg*ans have ill-intent, hate for
non-veg*ans, choose to be ignorant, are only trying to help their egos, etc.
This seems to be their real problem, and their insults and attacks are only
the symptoms of the problem.   I truly hope they can start to see things a
little more accurately.   That sure has to be rough, for them, to think all
veg*ans hate them, and then of course they act and think in a similar manner


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Dutch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:NA0W8.16769$[email]...
this
Yes, but he still caught you - that really must hurt your pride. I would not
take this attitude but you are so keen to highlight the faults of others, I
feel a little humiliation is due in your direction. BTW in an earlier post I
made an error, I stated "2am in the afternoon should be 2pm" you also missed
that one.
Try been nice to people Dutch, you may just find that they will reciprocate.
I do not enjoy nitpicking, but you really do deserve a little corrective
training.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Michelle Fulton" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Cu%V8.2220$[email]...
and
sadly

Kadaitcha Man is an evil bastard, a bit like Harold Shipman, so I wouldn't
trust anything he says. Ignore him.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"CaringIsTheFirstStep" <[email]>

Newbie here. Why the asterisk?

And what is this?

TIA.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"CaringIsTheFirstStep" <[email]> wrote in message
news:GnGW8.49501$[email]...
conflict,
what
some

I am an optimist!

etc.
only
all
manner

I've noticed from jonnie boy as well. My guess is, it springs from their
insecurity established during their lives. They seem to lack honesty with
others, but more importantly themselves.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Camcompany" <[email]> wrote in message
news:agaeiu$d2h$[email]...

He didn't catch me at all, I saw he was a troll immediately. You're just too
obtuse to catch my obvious sarcastic reply.

I would not
I
I
missed

I don't nitpick or spellcheck anyone, including myself. The errors I point
out are major errors in reasoning.

reciprocate.

I am being nice, you've never seen me angry.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Zakhar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:aga2ki$7gk$[email]...
There are of few of those people on this group Zak - some of them long term
posters. Still I bet you are going to watch tomorrow nights programme on
Shipman - I am. How this evil bastard was allowed to get away with these
crimes for so long is beyond comprehension. I suppose on the outside they
present as normal people like you, me or Jonathan Ball - hell makes you
wonder!


author: Stefan Heusmann

subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
This is short for both VEGANS and VEGetariANS. Comes from computer
filessystems, where the * can be substituted to whatever fits in.

c is the direct neighbour of v, on keyboard street.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Dutch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
newbies
in
too
Bollocks, Your reply was "I think you should die, its the only ethical
solution - sorry" Even with the reasoning of a pseudo intellectual like you,
this can, in no way be considered as sarcastic - come on Dutch, he caught
you!

others,
post

Sorry folks, this is where I leave the thread - I am feeling intimidated.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Camcompany" <[email]> wrote in message
news:agcjvg$dkv$[email]...
stuff
wouldn't
term

There are some strange people about, at least most of the ones who get here
can read and type!

(Talking about strange. In looking for the Harold Shipman listing I found
out that there's a programme about crematoria on at 21:30 today, so I'll be
watching that!

BBC1 Mon 8 Jul, 21:30 - 22:00  30 mins

It takes two to run a crematorium. Barry runs the public side, maintaining
the chapel and selecting from a wide range of music for the services; Gary
works backstage, running the furnaces.)

Cheers,

Zak.


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Camcompany" <[email]> wrote
[..]
you,

You're telling me that YOU think I was seriously suggesting that he should
die?

You're a dope.

End this thread, we're just feeding the troll scraps.

[..]


subject: Re: Kadaitcha Man

text:
"Zakhar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:agcs0m$p9o$[email]...
is
they
here
be
Great, Just missed it, but thanks anyway.


author: John Rutledge

subject: Re: Civil Rights are not "Special"; So why don't Gays have them?

text:
In article <[email]>,
John  Charles <[email]> wrote:

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) is a joke that is certainly going to be
overturned.  It was a close desicion, only 5 to 4, with Justice Powell,
one of the five, later publicly stating (to a law school class he was
teaching) that is vote to uphold the sodomy law "was probably a
mistake."  So the same Court hearing the same argument would come up
with a difference decision today than they did in 1986.  And, there
were several of what are best described as oddities.  The oddities
make the ruling a soo narrow that many sodomy laws (even the one in
question) could still be found unconstitutional without overturning
Bowers.

One of the oddities of this case is that the person accused of
sodomy never was tried.  The DA in the case refuse to drop the charge
and never scheduled any court hearings on it.  Powell stated in his
concuring that is the person in the case was actually facing prison
(the punished was up to 20 years), this "would create a serious
Eighth Amendment issue."  If the person in the case was actually
sentenced, the Court in 1987 would have rule 5-4 stricking down the
law.

Another oddity was the Court's way of avoiding Griswold v. Conneticut
(1965).  That case define the right of privacy and how it related to
heterosexual sex.  The Court's opinion avoided this case by stating
that homosexuality has no relation to family, marriage, or procreation.
However, the case involved a blow job and the law in question made no
distinction between heterosexual blow job and a homosexual blow job.
Both were punishable by up to 20 years in prison.  Reading the decision,
it seems it's okay to ban homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual
sodomy.

In short, all that Bowers said was the homosexual sodomy could be
made a minor crime.  This is a interesting conclusion since the
law in question defined heterosexual sodomy to be a major felony.

Also, Bowers is not a landmark decision.  It did nothing but re-state
the status quo.  And, it's only famous beacuse the great loops of
logic the Court did to justify its conclusion.

+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                                 |  "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge          | a smart index and hyper links stretching  |
| Research Assistant              | all through the world data net.  It was   |
| Distributed Multimedia          | terribly frustrating to flip back and     |
| Systems Lab                     | forth between the pages and crude flat    |
| Computer Science Department     | illustrations that never even moved.  Nor |
| UMass - Lowell                  | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins.   |
| 1 University Ave.               | It completely lacked a feel for sound.    |
| Lowell, MA 01854                |   "Most baffling of all was the problem   |
|                                 | new words...  In normal text you'd only   |
|                                 | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the  |
| [email]             | definition would pop up just below."      |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg |                from David Brin's _Earth_  |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+


author: John Charles

text:
On 4 Aug 1997 12:36:59 -0400, [email] (John Rutledge)
wrote:

And until it is ... the 14th Amendment cause of action is a flat
loser.  The Court had the opportunity and the invitation to overturn
the decision in _Romer_.  It declined to do so.  Next.

Because you say so.  Gosh, I guess this landmark case was just a minor
decision after all.  Better tell some judges pretty quick.

Right!  The DA refused to prosecute, nor could the plaintiff get
anybody else to prosecute.  The best they could do is keep him from
dropping the charge altogether so they could sue up the latter for
*declaratory* relief.  This was a put-up job from the first where the
Court was being invited to fashion special protections for
homosexuals.  They declined to do so and announced that they were out
of the business of inventing 14th Amendment rights.

As for 8th Amendment concerns, they do not tend to have any bearing on
14th Amendment jurisprudence.  But surely you knew that ...

That's what it seems to say, alright.  You can probably ban animal
sacrifice but not communion wafers for similar reasons.

The Court went out of its way to cast the issue as one of homosexual
sodomy and declined to protect it even in the home.  If you take any
comfort from this fact, the Constitution has also never been held to
create a right to heterosexual sex, contrary to your implication.
Although several posters seem to like citing it for this rule,
_Griswold_ does not stand for such a proposition.  It applies only to
contraceptives, not their use.  If that seems silly to you, this is
what you get when the Court starts usurping the legislature.

Wrong.  It said that homosexuality gets no special constitutional
protection.  Please reread the case and pay particular attention to
the standard of review employed there and in _Romer_.

This belief, if sincere, is probably grounds for demanding a refund
from your law school, the publishers of you casebooks, hornbooks and
legal outlines, and from the purveyors of your bar prep materials.
Errr, you *are* an attorney, aren't you?  ;-}

John

____________________________________________________
"The Courts must declare the sense of the law;
and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL
instead of judgement, the consequences would be
the substitution of their pleasure for that of
the legislative body."
     The Federalist No. 78.

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


text:
In article <[email]>,
John  Charles <[email]> wrote:

Romer had nothing to do with sodomy laws or the right to privacy.  If
the Court had overruled Bowers in Romer, it would have been a case of
legislating from the bench.  Romer was about a state creating two
classes of people, one which could seek protection from anti-
discrimination laws and one that couldn't.  In constrast, the argument
in Bowers was the right to privacy.  Romer never even got close to the
issue of privacy so the Court could not overrule Bower in Romer.
Bowers was also about partciular actions while Romer was about
perceived sexual orientation.

Care to explain what these similar reasons are?  The connection is
not obviuous unless you assume Christian establishment in US law.

Also, you can't ban animal sacrifice.  The Court decided this in
Church of the Likumi Babaly Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993).

What do you mean it applies to contraceptive, not their use?
Griswold voided a law banning the use of contraceptives by married
couples.  Later, the Court expanded this right to use contraceptives
to all heterosexuals, not just married ones.  The right to pricay as
defined by the Supreme Court includes the right of heterosexuals to
have sex that will not lead to procreation.  Funny, how this right
doesn't extend to homosexuals.  By the logic in Romer, this creation
of two classes of people, one which the practice of unprocreative sex
is protected and another which it isn't, is unconstitutional.  I see
Romer as contradicting Bowers in this respect.

You should read the disenting opinions in Bowers.  They clearly point
out the obvious flaws in Bowers.  The point out all the flawed logic
the majority had to resort to make sexual orientation from a very
minor aspect, the law in question doesn't care about the orientation
of the participants, into the 'major issue' of the case.

As for Romer, I have read it and it doesn't apply.  Romer had nothing
to do with privacy issues.  Romer was about a state trying to
incorperate two classes of citizens into its constitution.  This
is very different than Bowers.  Romer was against creating two
classes of citizens, homosexual and heterosexual, and applying
different sets of standards to them.  Ironicly, this is exactly
what Bowers did.

Care to explain exactly how Bowers is a landmark case?  The definition of
landmark according to WWWester Diction is:

	1 : an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land
	2 a : a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality
	  b : an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in
	      locating other structures
	3 : an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage
	4 : a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually
	    aesthetic interest; especially : one that is officially
	    designated and set aside for preservation

Only definition 3 applies to your use - all the others refer to a
structure.  All that Bowers did was uphold the status quo, i.e., upheld
a law that has existed since the American Revolution.  Since Bowers
didn't change a single point of law, it can't be consider a turning
point or a new stage in the law.

If Bowers had struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional, it would
have been a landmark case.  It would have been considered landmark
because it declared laws which have existed since the begining of the
US as uncontitutional.  The turning point or stage that it would have
marked is the inclusion of sodomy under the right of privacy.

+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|                                 |  "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge          | a smart index and hyper links stretching  |
| Research Assistant              | all through the world data net.  It was   |
| Distributed Multimedia          | terribly frustrating to flip back and     |
| Systems Lab                     | forth between the pages and crude flat    |
| Computer Science Department     | illustrations that never even moved.  Nor |
| UMass - Lowell                  | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins.   |
| 1 University Ave.               | It completely lacked a feel for sound.    |
| Lowell, MA 01854                |   "Most baffling of all was the problem   |
|                                 | new words...  In normal text you'd only   |
|                                 | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the  |
| [email]             | definition would pop up just below."      |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg |                from David Brin's _Earth_  |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+


text:
On 8 Aug 1997 12:53:37 -0400, [email] (John Rutledge)
wrote:

<snip>

It didn't have to.  Bowers established that "rational basis" review
would be applied to gay rights cases.  If homosexuality were a suspect
or semi-suspect class, the case would have had to be decided
accordingly.  Not only did the Court decline to create a new SDP
"fundamental right," it declined to fashion any special protection at
all.  Justice Scalia was *very* pointed in his questioning on this
point when _Romer_ was argued.  Rational basis remains the test.  That
puts gay rights on equal legal footing with the rights of the
left-handed.

You are mistaken.

Which word gives you trouble?

Incorrect.  The cases say (as much as you wish it were otherwise) that
IF you are having sex, being able to choose contraception is a right.
For that matter, purchasing contraceptives is a right even if your
aren't having sex.  The law does NOT say you have a right to sex; just
a right to contraceptives.  Sorry.  The law only says what it says,
not what you think it should have said as well.

You have an equal fundamental right to buy contraceptives.

Take it up with your God.  He (presumably) created these two classes
as such.  The Court, however, has not ever established a right to sex
for anyone.  It may just be that the reason for this failure is that
some of the smartest lawyers in the country might have anticipated
what even a layman would try to do with such a right.  What a lawyer
would try to do with a right to sex is frightening indeed to consider.

You agree with the dissent.  That is your prerogative.  I would say
that the majority got it right.  That's mine.  What counts, however,
are the words "majority" and "dissent."

The Court applied only "rational basis" review to a case built solely
around classification by sexual orientation.  This fact not only
*applies* to EP cases based on classification by sexual orientation,
it would appear to *control* the issue of how hostile the Court will
be to such classification.  RB review provides the *maximum* possible
deference to the states or Congress.  If it is *possible* that the
state or Congress had a reason for the classification that was merely
rational in its connection with some legitimate purpose, the
scrutinized law will pass without any further inquiry.  This level of
scrutiny is affectionately known as the "laugh test":   if the
Justices can keep straight faces, the law is good.

Some of you guys posting really need to understand that the meaning or
significance of a case is not found in what you want it to stand for
or what you might want to limit it into saying.  This is the stuff of
poor legal advocacy.  As much as I loathe the cases, _Griswold_ not
only establishes the right to purchase contraceptives, it grounded
this in a hitherto unknown "right to privacy."  This "right" may make
a mockery of the Constitution, but it is what the Court said.
_Wickert_ said that "Interstate Commerce" means essentially that
anything that might touch on commerce, however indirectly, becomes
subject to federal jurisdiction (in this case, it was the act of
growing your own wheat in your own back yard that was being
regulated).  These are appalling cases, but they stand for what they
stand for.  Wickert is not important as a case about wheat and Romer
is not significant because a particular law didn't pass the laugh
test.  The importance of Romer as a constitutional case is the
standard of review it employed:  mere "rational basis."  Get it?

You lose as an EP protected class.  That leaves you SDP, the last
resort of 14th Amendment attack, and the Court already announced that
it wasn't inventing any more rights or finding a right to homosexual
sex -- even in the privacy of your home.  (If this sounds harsh, you
might want to contemplate how it came to the arresting officer's
attention that Mr. Bowers was having sex in his home ...)

<snip>
<snip>

<chuckle>

The Court not only declined to fashion any protections for
classification by sexual orientation, it also announced that it was
out of the business of creating "fundamental rights."  It also found
that homosexual "sodomy" had no relationship to the invented "right to
privacy."  It also grounded the decision in the inherent power of the
states to legislate their own moral standards.  Some of us find all of
this a very significant turning point in a Court that had been
profoundly activist (legislative) since the New Deal.  That is why the
case is taught in so many law schools.  I can understand, however, why
you would passionately wish it to be otherwise.  I addition to viewing
the law through your own sense of need, you may be thinking that the
Curt works like Congress:  put a bunch of liberal is and you get
liberal law; put in conservatives and it is conservative law you see.
To a degree this is true, but the Court is reluctant to overturn the
decisions of past Courts.  Stare decisis and all that.  Even with
screaming liberals, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the law would
do more than change by inches and over years.

John

____________________________________________________
"The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL
instead of judgement, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of
the legislative body."
     The Federalist No. 78.

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


author: J. Northwood

text:
Very well, then.  May we assume you support the "majority," rather
than the "dissent" in the Hawaii case?

After all, what counts are the words "majority" and "dissent."

   ~ Jon

----- jmnorthw -- at -- gte -- dot -- net -----

"People seem to enjoy things more when they
 know a lot of other people have been left
 out of the pleasure."
	Russel Baker

------ www - dot - northwood - dot - org ------

  Do not send my mail to [email]


author: LC

subject: Dead fetus

text:
Has anyone here ever eaten a dead fetus? I work at an abortion clinic.
I ate a dead fetus after one of our operations. It tasted good. One
time, I stuffed a dead fetus into my vagina and pretended I was
pregnant. Then I took it out and gave myself a pretend abortion. I love
my job.

LC


author: Dave in Lake Villa

subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
'Has anyone here ever eaten a dead fetus? I work at an abortion clinic.
I ate a dead fetus after one of our operations. It tasted good. One
time, I stuffed a dead fetus into my vagina and pretended I was
pregnant. Then I took it out and gave myself a pretend abortion. I love
my job.
LC'

REPLY: Its a real travesty how you make light of such an important topic
as developing human life being brutally murdered.


author: Ray Fischer

subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
LC <[email]> wrote:

                                _____________________
                    /|  /|     |                     |
                    ||__||     |  Do not feed the    |
                   /   O O\__  | trolls.  Thank you. |
                  /          \ |     --Mgt.          |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


author: Cleopatra

subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
LC wrote:

LC, most of these vile abortovorkians do indeed "love" their jobs! The
very sight of mangled, chopped up little infants gets their hormones
flowing, as it were, Think of it as an aborto-orgasm! While some may
view as pleasurable a cigarette after sex, they view an abortion clinic
dumpster full of chopped-up infant body parts as the ultimate
"afterglow." Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't have sex right on top
of all this grissly mess to get their hormones further inflamed!

Whereas most normal people celebrate new life, and welcome it into the
world, these thoroughly amoral, murderous nihilists worship at the
shrine of death and killing. They are really very little diferent than
Muslim fanatics who blow themselves up for Allah, except they do it by
proxy and substitute tiny, defenseless infants. At least it can be said
of fanatical Muslims that they put their money where their mouth is!
They at least put THEIR life on the line.

Never forget that the "only" people who actively promote abortion are
those who are already born, and mostly "grown up!" Yeppers, they got
THEIRS! Now abortion is quite cool.

Cordially, Cleopatra


author: The Chief Instigator

subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
"LC" <[email]> writes:

Way to go, "Lisa Ruby".  (You're posting from the same IP "she" did.)


author: Ronald 'More-More' Moshki

subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
LC wrote:

The feti of the anti-aborts (the vast majority of all feti)
are so, very, very tasty. Esp. with vegan ice cream and vegan mashed
potato pie.


author: IAAH

subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
Cleopatra wrote:

Well, we can see who's getting all aroused about
this - and it seems to be you.

Idiot, the "only" people who actively promote
ANYTHING are those who are already born.


subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
"The Chief Instigator" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

What's more pathetic than a spiteful troll?


subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
"LC" <[email]> writes:

The IQ-80 goldbricker in the White House, I'd say.


subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
"The Chief Instigator" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

That's an *entirely* different level of pathetic indeed.

Just reviewed the 60 Minutes segment on Shrub, as I had to Tivo it due to a
football party yesterday.

The guy is losing it, a deer in the headlights.

Gawd help us for the next two years...


subject: Re: Dead fetus

text:
"LC" <[email]> writes:

There is a difference of a couple of orders of magnitude.

I'll be happy to still be alive two years from this coming Saturday...whether
there will still be a United States is a different can of worms.


subject:
Re: To all those busy bodies..Gwen, Tom, Keegan, Barnes...you know
	who you are

text:
On Nov 20, 8:40 am, "Osprey" <[email]> wrote:

Why didn't you address my facts about you, prison clerk?

It's all over the news. Who could ignore it?

[...]

[...]


author: Osprey

subject: Re: To all those busy bodies..Gwen, Tom, Keegan, Barnes...you know who you are

text:
"G.B." <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Nov 20, 8:40 am, "Osprey" <[email]> wrote:

*Why didn't you address my facts about you, prison clerk?

You haven't stated any facts, moron.
You're claims are not facts..they are just nothing more than unsupported
claims, moron.

*It's all over the news. Who could ignore it?

You specifically said yesterday that "I" was supposably abusing inmates.

Now, you wish to change the story.

Either you got the guts to come out and make the claim or you don't.

You don't, and you know why.  Because you know the moment you do, I can sue
you.

You're doing the same thing Barnes did and what Keegan is doing. If you
noticed, which you obviously did because your trying the same game, they
both claimed that I was supposably reprimanded. Both know that's not true;
however they both continued to make that claim.  The moment I asked them to
make the claim and do it officially, using full name and Department..they
both ran away like scared little chickens.  They both know that not only I,
but the DOC would persue legal action.  The DOC has more resources and they
would persue legal action on anyone who falsly accuses one of their staff
members of anything illegally or otherwise false.

I have never abused any inmate.
I have never been reprimanded.

Yet, you idiots continue to lie and make these claims.  So you can never say
you don't lie, because we both know you do.

Just like your other lie claiming my daughters didn't stay with me.

Go on, keep on snipping coward.  I called your bluff, you ran..and that's
all I needed.

You're best bet, if you don't want this little game to keep going round and
round, is to just give it up now. You lost.


author: james g. keegan jr.

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

your repeated, malicious lies here in newsgroups directed at several
people strongly suggest otherwise.

given your well known reputation as a sleazeball liar, no one can
believe anything you say.

oh yes you have.
[...]


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

Make the claim official then.

State your claim and use the full name and department.

Then and only then, can you be taken seriously. If you can't do that, then
you have admited you lied.


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

let me repeat --- you have been reprimanded, and not only once.


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

<snip>

You have nothing to say until you can..

a) provide proof for your claim
and
b) make your claim official.

Nobody believes you, I have yet to see one person say they believe your
claim.  If they did say it, then they are admitting they believe things
without proof.

Now, you admitted you lied since the condition was that if you can't make
the claim official, then you are admitting you lied.


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

==unsnip

let me repeat --- you have been reprimanded, and not only once.

==end unsnip

really> then why did you delete it and still respond? if what i said was
"nothing," you could have safely ignored it.

but you didn't ignore

it made you frightened, frustrated, and angry.

so i'll repeat it yet again

"let me repeat --- you have been reprimanded, and not only once."


author: J

subject: Re: It's All About FACTS!!  ALL of the Facts Support Egalitarians.  NO Facts even EXIST to Validate BIGOTED Agendas.  None! ZIP!!  NADA!!!

text:
"(ï¿½`ï¿½.ï¿½ Craig Chilton/The Mad Hatter ï¿½.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>"
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

How many "real" names do you have? I count "Craig Chilton", Doc Tavish, and
your latest, "The Mad Hatter" among your many, many nyms. Can you EXPLAIN
why the headers match on all these nyms if they're not all you?


author: Kadaitcha Man

subject: Listz alert

text:
(¯`·.¸  Craig Chilton  ¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>, Ye are a
muddy-mottled boil'd brains, a lascivious villainous abominable
misleader of youth, a hasty-witted dog easily won to fawn on any man,
a long-tongued very forward march-chick, thou nit. Ye censured:

*DING*


author: John Baker

text:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:08:09 -0400, "J" <[email]> wrote:

Just one, IBen. The one on my birth certificate, which happens to also
be the one I post under.

And can *you* explain why *your* headers are or were an exact match
for at least two dozen nyms over the last few years if they were not
you? Of course, the style and content of the majority of the posts
made under those nyms is sufficient evidence to conclude that they
most probably are/were all you even if the headers didn't clinch it,
but feel free to make an even bigger fool of yourself by trying to
deny it, J IBen Auric Nice Mean Man Loose Cannon Piece Of Shit Young.

People who have nothing to be ashamed of  - i.e. *decent* people, as
opposed to those who toss the word around at every opportunity but
have no idea what it means - have no need for anonymizing proxies and
a warehouse full of pseudonyms. Consider that the next time you feel
the urge to climb onto your high horse to look down your nose at
people whose asses you aren't worthy to kiss.


author: Joe Curry

subject: Re: Travel Intelligence: Opinion, Tips & Advic

text:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT), Ken Johnson
<[email]> wrote:

Your hatred for Edinburgh and Scotland?
----------
FU's set to talk bizarre..otherwise they won't know of Ken Johnson's
promise...


author: b -- the poster formerly known as "the rtiirteen dixciple

text:
Joe Curry wrote:
nikolai kingsley <[email]>
     ok, i visited, now what?


text:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 14:39:52 -0400, " b -- the poster formerly known
as \"the rtiirteen dixciple " <[email]> wrote:

Exciting isn't it..?

Ken?..Ken?....


text:
Joe Curry wrote:

... your stupidity is showing if you really think pete visited the site

b;
     ot ken


text:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:37:59 -0400, " b -- the poster formerly known
as \"the rtiirteen dixciple " <[email]> wrote:

Is that what you really think? :-)


author: SMV

subject: hey there!!

text:
This morning on sharon's pal talk session, she called in sick, but
nevertheless, I got to hear MAZ!!!  Totally cool! really is a new thing to
hear someone's voice! cool! love you maz! happy new year to you and to
EVERYONE here! love you! Sheryl


author: maz

subject: Re: hey there!!

text:
The party is on. Sheryl Valentine my Angel OMG its WEEEEEEE!
this night was the best. (The others were boring) Don't tell anyone pssst.
what a treat! love ya for always. we are gathering here off and on with all
the living Christ's available. And ONE showed up. For Free.
Have a good one, Fam! maz

"SMV" <[email]> schreef in bericht
news:[email]...


subject: Re: hey there!!

text:
maz;The party is on. Sheryl Valentine my Angel OMG its WEEEEEEE!
this night was the best. (The others were boring) Don't tell anyone pssst.
what a treat! love ya for always. we are gathering here off and on with all
the living Christ's available. And ONE showed up. For Free.
Have a good one, Fam! maz

sv: so was it night for you this morning! loved hearing your voice and your
words! happy happy new year to you and ankie. ;O)

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


author: Mike Smith

subject: Re: Help Defend Rosie & Save Free Speech In AmeriKKKa

text:
On 5 Apr 2007 18:01:19 -0700, "Mï¿½bius Pretzel"
<[email]> wrote:

Yep... More proof that Mobius is Rosie....

They both possess the intelligence of concrete.

Mike Smith


author: swamp

text:
On 5 Apr 2007 18:01:19 -0700, "Mï¿½bius Pretzel"
<[email]> wrote:

<major snippage>

The fact that you're posting this nonsense conclusively proves that
free speech is alive and well in America. Ms. O'Donnell needs 1st
Amendment protection like the South Pole needs ice.

And don't start in on global warming...

-- Rob


author: Restless Fingers Syndrome

text:
Mï¿½bius Pretzel wrote:

  Someone please contact O.J. and tell him another
  white chick needs her throat cut to shut her up.

  ching chong ching chang

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


author: Daniel

text:
On Apr 5, 9:01 pm, "Möbius Pretzel" <[email]>
wrote:

Guess what, that is one of the consequences of the First Amendment,
everyone has that right. The fact that people say whatever they say is
them simply exercising THEIR First Amendment rights. Why are they not
entitled to the same right that Rosie is?


author: George Kerby

text:
On 4/5/07 8:16 PM, in article [email],
"Mike Smith" <[email]> wrote:

I think you're on to something. Only a rabid, upside-down vampirebat lisbo
would go by the handle "Pretzel".

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


author: pitchforks and torches

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

WHACK!!!

Hey, Captain Shitscrubber! They have the common sense to
question the catapulted  propaganda, while you ignore Reality,
and eat the bullshit up with a spoon.

They appose the illegal ShrubCo Junta, while you goosestep around
looking for other fools that are also lonely and stupid enough to come
on down into your bunker for the 'Shrub-IS-Maximum Leader
 and Constitution Burning Rally'.

Fools like.... 5...4...3...2...1...


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

WHACK!!!!!
Do you have a 'problem' with our Constitutional rights, specifically
First Amendment rights to free speech?

WHACK!!!!!
Do you have a 'problem' with the vast majority of scientific experts,
specifically, human contributions to accelerated Climate Change?


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

Just like the swallows to Capistrano. Like clockwork on a time-bomb.
Like a moth to flame, and flies to shit...

Shitscrubber ejaculates, and Gorge rushes over to catch the
yummy, yummy splooge....

WHACK!!!!!

Let the snowballing begin!

ARTICLE 25 IS QUICKER THAN IMPEACHMENT!!!!


text:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:17:20 GMT, "pitchforks and torches"
<[email]> wrote:

None at all. Voltaireian (or whatever the adjective is) even.

ftr - "whack" is protected under free speech rights, but aint much of
an argument.

Yes, but let's finish up the WTC issue before we take on
another(extremely complex) subject.

Google "psychiatry+projection."

-- Rob


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

WHACK!!!
Responding 'in kind' to...

THAT'S yer 'arguement'?
Good luck with that, Boggy One....

And then, try  " cognitive dissonance "...


text:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:39:46 GMT, "pitchforks and torches"
<[email]> wrote:

Hardly in kind, but let's table that one.

No need to make an argument. Rosie's got the 2nd biggest mouth on the
planet. What makes you think *she* - of all people - needs 1st
amendment protection? Your attentions should be directed elsewhere.

The whole point of usenet discourse is to root out the particulars of
where and why we disagree. That's cognitive. Labeling me or others as
Bush supporters is projection. SHOUTING hatred of any presidential
administration is unproductive dissonance.

Removed, not robbed, and there are efforts to restore them. I'd rather
be blown up on a plane than take off my shoes and wait in
excrutiatingly long airport lines the rest of my life.

-- Rob


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

WHACK!!!!
SHOUTING about this Junta is a Patriotic Call of Alarm, and it isn't
unproductive.
Many are feeling pinched, lied to, and worried about ShrubCo's 'leadership'.
They have started to examine how we came to this sad point in our nation's
rapid demise.

It is our Patriotic Duty to point out the failures of Shrub and Companies'
policies, strategies,
and ideologies that have reduced us all to a weakened, bankrupted, and
failed Fascist state.

So, stop denying the ugly truth, and leap to the defense of YOUR country!

I'd rather

You may get both, anyway. The freight in the hold under your seat STILL
isn't
inspected.....it takes too long, and costs too much, so they frisk YOU and
your luggage,
and push the freight on UNINSPECTED, just as they did before 9/11.

"Air freight carried in the same cargo hold on domestic flights is not
inspected, if it comes through a "known shipper." Pilots see the lack of
cargo screening as the greatest threat to U.S. aviation security
[http://news.corporate.findlaw.com]."
http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Jun/security.asp

Feel safer, now? SHRUBCO DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR SAFETY!!!!

ARREST BUSH AND THE JUNTA SQUATTING IN OUR WHITEHOUSE!!!


text:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:34:39 GMT, "pitchforks and torches"
<[email]> wrote:

Solution. Everyone boards naked, no carry-on, luggage, or cargo, and
we wire money to the destination. The airlines would provide clothing
at some point.

A concession to terrorists.

-- Rob


author: Angilion

subject: Re: AN Unusual Rape (and Ayn Rand))

text:
On 1 Apr 1999 07:11:20 GMT, [email] (Purfect 9) wrote:

Yes, a single standard is necessary if maths is to be imperative.  Maths
isn't imperative.  People can live without it.

Not at all.  In base3, 2+2=11.  In base10, 2+2 could equal 5 if 5 was defined
in the way that 4 currently is.

Okay, I'm just being picky and arguing largely for the sake of it.  2+2 has a
fixed result, regardless of what that result is called.  I assume that's what
you meant.

It requires a great deal more than that.  I am certain that there are some
things that *cannot* be understood by any human without a major change
in what a human is.  There are limits to a human mind.  Understanding the
truth would require abilities generally seen as divine, and without
understanding the truth we can't really know if it is fixed.

What about Buddhist philosophy?  Wiccan?

No.  See below.

That makes you a tyrant, albeit a powerless one.  Imposing uniforminity of
thought on everyone is what tyrants dream of.  Doubleplusungood.


author: Purfect 9

subject: Re: AN Unusual Rape (and Ayn Rand))

text:
I disagree.  An extreme example is that of the case of the woman bungee jumper
from Super Bowl 1997 who made a 100 foot jump with a 110 foot bungee cord.  But
more practical examples involve the trillions of calculations made by billions
of people daily in transactions involving the supply and demand for food.

And it is just such attempts at "cooking the books"  that pave the road to
economic disasters.  Reality is real, and cannot be conned, even by acts of
congress.

History regularly makes fools of those who underestimate the ability of the
human mind.  Even today, a poll of ALL the worlds people will show
overwhelmingly that buildings over 100 stories high are impossible to
construct; that space travel is science fiction; that organ transplants will
never happen; that no one will ever run a four minute mile; etc.
Both of them allow for the use of force as long as it's "in the public
interest".

No, rule by force is what tyrants dream of.  Which makes me more of an
"anti-tyrant". And the powerlessness IS an important distinction: "powerless
tyrant" is an oxy-moron, and the fact that I don't seek power, only seek to
remove force from human relationships, makes me not even a potential tyrant.  I
am, in fact, the arch-enemy of all tyrants.

---M


subject: Re: AN Unusual Rape (and Ayn Rand))

text:
On 7 Apr 1999 23:49:18 GMT, [email] (Purfect 9) wrote:

In a society such as the one you live in.  The supply and demand for food could
be as simple as hunting or foraging as required.  There is no need to count the
food, just to decide whether there is enough or not.

Of course, it could be argued that our brains constantly use maths to calculate
the required forces for whatever physical actions we take.

Reality is a lot more complicated than basic arithmetic.

So most people underestimate the limits.  That in no way proves that there
are no limits.

So does Rand's, by what you've said.  She allows a judicial and penal
system, right?  That's the use of force in the public interest.

[..]

Crap.  You want everyone to think the same way: your way.  How more tyrannical
can you get?


author: JudGeDreD

subject: KOSHER KILLING OF ANIMALS IS INHUMANE,UNETHICAL & RITUAL ABUSE.--VIVA campaign against Religious Slaughter.

text:
Going for the Kill
Religious Slaughter in the UK

In Britain today, millions of animals have their throats cut while
fully conscious - and it's excused as religious ritual

This is not religion - it is animal abuse!

Religious slaughter is a daily event in Britain. It takes place in
slaughterhouses, gardens and back yards everywhere. The slaughterers
are exempt from the law and do not first stun the animals. And if you
eat meat you play a part in it.

For both Halal (Muslim) and Shechita (Jewish Kosher) slaughter, fully
conscious animals are held in metal crushes or forced on to their
backs, their necks brutally extended and their throats cut. It can
take several slashes and it might be minutes before they die - if
they're not disembowelled first. Much of the meat is sold on the open
market - unmarked. You may be eating it and subsidising the suffering.

This is not an issue of race. As a nation, we have made a series of
moral judgements. We do not allow multiple marriages, the caste
system, stoning to death for adultery, public beatings or executions,
amputations for theft or clitoral mutilations. But animals, it seems,
don't count. Viva! disagrees.

Stop legalised animal abuse - end ritual slaughter

Viva! demands that:

- all religious slaughter is phased out - as recommended by Government
advisers.

- in the meantime, all ritually slaughtered meat is clearly labelled

- all religious slaughter for export is immediately stopped

Support VIVA in ridding the world of these ritual fanatics of animal
abuse.

http://www.viva.org.uk/Viva!%20Campaigns/Slaughter/relslaughterpage.htm


author: Susan Cohen

subject:
Re: KOSHER KILLING OF ANIMALS IS NOT INHUMANE,UNETHICAL & RITUAL
 ABUSE.--VIVA campaign against Religious Slaughter.

text:
JudGeDreD wrote:

What a shame you & this reporter are so ignorant.


author: Camcompany

subject: Re: KOSHER KILLING OF ANIMALS IS NOT INHUMANE,UNETHICAL & RITUAL  ABUSE.--VIVA campaign against Religious Slaughter.

text:
"Susan Cohen" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
----------------
Mostely to satisfy the desires of Jews Muslims and the like - so what is
your point Susan?
----------------
I make no coments of the posting of JudGeDred. What I will say to you is
that you are correct and it is a disgrace to the UK. The rest is the subject
of a posting started by you which I believe ran for almost three weeks. Not
again please!!


subject: Re: KOSHER KILLING OF ANIMALS IS NOT INHUMANE,UNETHICAL & RITUAL ABUSE.--VIVA campaign against Religious Slaughter.

text:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:04:33 -0400, Susan Cohen <[email]>
wrote:

But honest eh?


author: "Berkano Berchta"

subject: Religion Supports The Killing of Animals For Meat

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

Original Subject:
KOSHER KILLING OF ANIMALS IS NOT INHUMANE,UNETHICAL & RITUAL ABUSE.--VIVA
campaign against Religious Slaughter.

Maybe they meant that those millions of animals were "fully curious", not
"fully conscious", when their throats were cut.  They were curious and in
awe for the great benefit of a more humane and high quality lifestyle that
was given to them by the meat-eaters right up until their throats were cut.
Their screams and spurting blood were all just a ritual of appreciation to
the wonderful human benefactors who have helped sustain the ecological
balance by killing and eating them.  Yeah . . .

Can't you all see how morally justified it is to kill?  The interesting
thing is, if you read your Bible you may note that God forbade Israelites to
eat meat, until Moses gave them permission to eat clean and kosher stuff
when they screamed about their desire for meat.  Then they were cursed for
the desire to eat animals.

But I am not a Christian or Jew, so I guess it is no hard task for me to
notice the hypocrisy of people who claim to believe their popular
scriptures.  Someday our progeny will look at our meat eating habits with
the same degree of disgust that the Average American views the eating of cat
or dog meat.

== Berkano Berchta ==

"Camcompany" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ahni5s$dk9$[email]...
subject
Not

 -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----


text:
JudGeDreD wrote:

Hoenstly ignorant, or honestly stupid?

Susan


author: Mimi Cohen

text:
JudGeDreD wrote:

Only if you mean you were honestly taken in by the dishonest reporter
spreading a lie. If you weren't taken in then you intentionally spread
the lie further and that makes you DIShonest.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Religion Supports The Killing of Animals For Meat

text:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:25:29 -0600, "Berkano Berchta" <berkano[nospam]@netzero.net> wrote:

[...]

Genesis 4
3    In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
      as an offering to the LORD.
4    But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
      flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5    but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
      was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Genesis 9
1    Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
      and increase in number and fill the earth.
2    The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth
      and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along
      the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into
      your hands.
3    Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave
      you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4    "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5    And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
      demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
      I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Leviticus 1
1    The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.
      He said,
2    "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings an
      offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either
      the herd or the flock.
3    "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer
      a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the Tent
      of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
4    He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will
      be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5    He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then Aaron's
      sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against the
      altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6    He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7    The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange
      wood on the fire.
8    Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the
      head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9    He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest
      is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering
      made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Deuteronomy 12
15  Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
      towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
      gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
      God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
      may eat it.

Deuteronomy 14
4    These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
      goat,
5    the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
      the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6    You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
      that chews the cud.
7    However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
      completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
      coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
      hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8    The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not
      chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
      carcasses.
9    Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has
      fins and scales.
10  But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
      for you it is unclean.
11  You may eat any clean bird.
12  But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
13  the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14  any kind of raven,
15  the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16  the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17  the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18  the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19  All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20  But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21  Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
      alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
      sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
      God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

1 Kings 8
5    and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
      gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many sheep
      and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
63  Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
      twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
      sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the
      temple of the LORD.

Mark 7
18  "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a
      man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
19  For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then
      out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

Luke 24
39  Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a
      ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40  When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41  And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
      amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42  They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43  and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Acts 10
9    About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
      approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10  He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
      was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11  He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
      down to earth by its four corners.
12  It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
      of the earth and birds of the air.
13  Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14  "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
      impure or unclean."
15  The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
      that God has made clean."
16  This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back
      to heaven.

Romans 14
1    Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
      disputable matters.
2    One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
      whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.


author: Dutch

text:
"Berkano Berchta" <berkano[nospam]@netzero.net> wrote

<snip a lot of nonsense>

cat

I doubt it. AR is just another religion, another bunch of whacked-out
fanatics selling their particular brand of salvation.


text:
"Berkano Berchta" <berkano[nospam]@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:[email]...
cut.
to
cat
Thanks for that Berkano. It's always nice to see a new poster on this group
with balanced views. This group is presently far from perfect, there are a
few internal disputes. Welcome and please stay around, your input will be
appreciated.

Ray Slater


text:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:25:29 -0600, "Berkano Berchta"
<berkano[nospam]@netzero.net> wrote:

Guess that just about says it all Berkano!

How could we have been so naive ;-)


subject: Burger King Changes Hands

text:
07/25/2002: Burger King Changes Hands

http://www.vegancentral.com/vc/redirect.php?id=1142
British-based drinks firm Diageo Plc said today it was selling the
world's number two hamburger chain Burger King for $2.26 billion to a
private equity consortium backing the fast-food firm's management.

Goin down the pan?


text:
"Dutch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:8gM%8.45838$[email]...
That's where you are wrong Dutch. The new posters to this group look upon
the likes of you as yesterday's pseudo intellectual trolls. We have accepted
this, new posters may question your sanity. Rightly so! Now ask a few boring
question about that, when we awake!


text:
"Camcompany" <[email]> wrote
of

Sadly Ray, I am right. It comes as quite a shock, I realize.

accepted
boring

My questions bore you because you can never answer them.


author: Chive Mynde

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
Scott Douglas <[email]> wrote in message news:<Xns92352F0E4B588Vendicar@216.221.81.119>...

Langer/Gossman, is there a difference between those two shills?

-=Chive

Science is not belief, but the will to find out.


author: Scott Douglas

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
[email] (Chive Mynde) wrote in

  Yes.  Langer is quite a bit smarter than Gossman, and they lie in
different ways.

  When they are not lying they are typically posting half truths, or
avoiding issues.  Gossman uses an entirely different technique for
avoidance.  He simply ignores the questions put to him.

  Langer on the other hand tries to misdirect by providing an answer that
is either false but leads to a lesser crime, or simply denies the question
is valid and then refuses to answer.

  Gossman is also more dishonest than Langer, although the difference is
subtle.


author: Andrew Langer

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
In article <[email]>, Chive Mynde
says...

You could have found out last Summer, LCHRPP "Chive Mynde", but you chickened
out.  You could have debated me in person, and drew all sorts of unique
conclusions, but instead you chose to stay in your Myndecave.

Funny how you and Nudds seem to live these solitary lives!

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others).  Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities.  He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.


author: David Gossman

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

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

For someone who talks about "the will find out" you are acting rather
ignorant. The real question is what is the difference between you and Nudds?
Other than living in two different locations it is hard for some people to
tell you apart. You both hide what you do and who your work for and avoid
answering questions that you know would back you into a logical wall. You
both resort to personal attacks and name calling because you are apparently
unable to deal with someone who disagrees with you. So tell us Chive, what
makes you different from Scott? Andrew and I are very public about who we
are and what we do so the differences are very public. Why do you have
trouble seeing that? Or are you learning Scott's version of "honesty"? If so
you are certainly learning from a master.

David Gossman


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns92383E9ECBE6FVendicar@216.221.81.119...

More mindless accusations from Scott. Learn from him Chive - he is the
master.

David Gossman


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
Andrew Langer<[email]> wrote in

Debating Langer and Gossman is trivial, particularly where the topic is
their failed Libertairan/Randite ideology.


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote in
news:af8l7i$n6r$[email]:

Gossman complains about not knowing my personal life rather than post on
topic.