author: Wen-King Su

subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:

:>;I tell you only that your definition must match the perception
;(description)
:>:such that both are equivalent.  It is you that seems intent upon claiming
;>;that your perception is separate from your defintion.
:
;>But of course I never say they are equivalent, what is your point?  I
:>only say they match.  It is you that seems intent upon claiming that my
;>perception is inseparable from definition.
:
:I do indeed.

Then show that my perception is inseparable from definiton.

;>;The word "flat" is applied to all things that fit that description.
:>:Likewise all things that fit that description belong to the "flat" domain.
;>;If the domain changes, then the defintion changes along with the domain.
:>:They are part and parcel, and not separate as you would like to think thus
;>;subject to deception.  It also seems now you wish to modify the word
:>:"definition" to a point where it includes only those things you define.
;>;More proprietary deviation is highly inappropriate for one who claims
:>:science as conclusive.
;
:>Why would the definition change?  What does the definition of "flat" has
;>to do with the "flat" domain?   (equivalence, the law of identity,
:defintion, take your pick) And when have I said definition is anything
;>other than what I define?  Havn't I always said "my definition", as in I
:>can know my defintions because I defined them?  Did you missed that
;>earlier?  When have I claimed that science is conclusive?  You seems to
:>be throwing baseless assertions left and right.
;
:
;I throw nothing, however, I assert you may be deceived no matter in what
:manner
;you define.

Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my definition of flat which
does not convey information, which does not include the claim that
perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot be generated by
something that is not flat, and that it does not include the set of things
I believe to be flat, and that it does not include the claim that the
definition can't change later.  If you can't show that, then you are
indeed throwing baseless assertions.

;>:>:>And even if definitions change, I know what they are all all time, for
:I
;>;>;>would be the one changing them.  Still, I don't see any information
:>:>:>conveyed.  What information are you talking about?
;
:>:>:You will define time.  That set of words you will utilize to describe
;and
:>;>;attribute to time is information.  When you actually discover the true
;>:>:nature of time, then that set of information will change but you will
:>;still call the word time, so although the word does not change, it does
;convey
:>;>:information which is subject to deception.
;
:>;>Why do you think all definitions can be expressed in words?  (If it can
;not
:>:be expressed in words then it does not match the accepted and commonly
;used
:>;definition of definition)
;
:>Then express definition of "love" in words.

No answer?

;>;(deceived, none the less)
:
;>Which has nothing to do with whether I can know my definitions beyond
:>deception, right?
;
:
;You can not know deception, thus you can know nothing beyond it.

But of course I can know something to be true of deception -- the
definitions.  Deception is defined to be the conveying of false information.
I can know my definition are beyond deception for they do not convey
information.

;>:>Not my knowledge of my definition.  And if I change my definitions, I
:>;>still know them always because I am the one changing them, and no
;>:>information is conveyed in the process.
:
;>:Your definition was in error thus while you held that definition to be
:>;correct, you were deceived.  You will not change a definition without new
;>:information. <smile>
:
;>But that the definition is to be held as correct is not part of the
:>definition, so I wasn't deceived in my knowledge of my definition. Whether
;>it is "correct" can only be part of the perception.  I will not change my
:>definition without new information?  Watch me.  :-)
;
:Do as you will, the fact remains deception is possible at all levels upon
;all human knowledge and even you as you change any definition.

Show that to be true.  Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my
definition of flat which does not convey information, which does not
include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot
be generated by something that is not flat, and that it does not include
the set of things I believe to be flat, and that it does not include the
claim that the definition can't change later.


author: ONEstar

subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message
upon claiming that your perception is separate from your defintion.

Define anything that you have not beuilt from perceptive data.  When you can
not, you will have proved it to yourself.

domain.
thus
;

When you define flat, you must use terms which are based upon perception.
Simple, elegant and concise, not difficult at all.

for

Love have many definitions, the Greek used at least four different
definitions in reference to the human emotive condition.  Which human
condition do you refer to?

This will do you little good, even if it were accurate, if you remain
deceived.

Yes, they do convey all the description you convey to and ascribe to them.

new
:
Whether

Rather than attempt a guess, this time, at what you mean, I must say that I
do not really see your point, nor am I able to make sense of the extremely
complex sentence structure and tense changes.  Please break it down into
smaller sentences which actually accomplish the communication you desire.
You do not know a definition at all, you merely attach significance (and
other definitions) to it by means of previous perceptions.

ONE


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
:Wen-King Su wrote in message
;>:>;I tell you only that your definition must match the perception
:>;(description) such that both are equivalent.  It is you that seems intent
;upon claiming that your perception is separate from your defintion.
:
;>;>But of course I never say they are equivalent, what is your point?  I
:>:>only say they match.  It is you that seems intent upon claiming that my
;>;>perception is inseparable from definition.
:
;>:I do indeed.
:
;>Then show that my perception is inseparable from definiton.
:
;
:Define anything that you have not beuilt from perceptive data.  When you can
;not, you will have proved it to yourself.

In what way is a thing built from another thing be inseparable from that
other thing?  Once I have decided from having analyzed so many different
perceptions that I want some characterists be described by making a
definition, I would know what the definition is; and it is no longer
relevant whether the perceptions I have analyzed that led me to that
decision actually contain those characterists.  I would know my definition
even if all those perceptions are forged.  Hence definition is separate
from perceptions.

:>Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my definition of flat which
;>does not convey information, which does not include the claim that
:>perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot be generated by
;>something that is not flat, and that it does not include the set of things
:>I believe to be flat, and that it does not include the claim that the
;>definition can't change later.  If you can't show that, then you are
:>indeed throwing baseless assertions.
;
:
;When you define flat, you must use terms which are based upon perception.
:Simple, elegant and concise, not difficult at all.

What terms?  Definition are not in general describeable in words.

:>;>:>:>And even if definitions change, I know what they are all all time,
;for
:>:I would be the one changing them.  Still, I don't see any information
;>:>:>:>conveyed.  What information are you talking about?
:
;>:>:>:You will define time.  That set of words you will utilize to describe
:>;and attribute to time is information.  When you actually discover the true
;>;>:>:nature of time, then that set of information will change but you will
:>:>;still call the word time, so although the word does not change, it does
;>;convey information which is subject to deception.
:
;>:>;>Why do you think all definitions can be expressed in words?  (If it can
:>;not be expressed in words then it does not match the accepted and commonly
;>;used definition of definition)
:
;>:>Then express definition of "love" in words.
:
;>No answer?
:
;
:Love have many definitions, the Greek used at least four different
;definitions in reference to the human emotive condition.  Which human
:condition do you refer to?

I only have one definition of "love".  Please express it in words to the
extent that if there is anything I perceive that I would consider matching
the definition of love, then the words you said to have expressed it would
also qualify it as love; and anything I perceive that I would consider
not matching the definition of love, then the words you say to have express
it would also disqualify it as love.

:>;>;(deceived, none the less)
;
:>;>Which has nothing to do with whether I can know my definitions beyond
;>:>deception, right?
:
;
:>;You can not know deception, thus you can know nothing beyond it.
;
:>But of course I can know something to be true of deception -- the
;>definitions.
:
;This will do you little good, even if it were accurate, if you remain
:deceived.

But it would show that you were wrong to say I can't have knowledge of
anything in the narrow sense of "know".

:> Deception is defined to be the conveying of false information.
;>I can know my definition are beyond deception for they do not convey
:>information.
;
:
;Yes, they do convey all the description you convey to and ascribe to them.

What do you mean by "convey to"?  From where to where?

;>Show that to be true.  Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my
:>definition of flat which does not convey information, which does not
;>include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot
:>be generated by something that is not flat, and that it does not include
;>the set of things I believe to be flat, and that it does not include the
:>claim that the definition can't change later.
;
:Rather than attempt a guess, this time, at what you mean, I must say that I
;do not really see your point, nor am I able to make sense of the extremely
:complex sentence structure and tense changes.  Please break it down into
;smaller sentences which actually accomplish the communication you desire.
:You do not know a definition at all, you merely attach significance (and
;other definitions) to it by means of previous perceptions.

Sure:

Please show that I can be deceived in my knowledge of my defintion of flat,
which is a defintion that:

1) does not convey information.

2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of
   "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat.

3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat.

4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later.


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message
intent

can

Do not be so intent upon convincing yourself that what you say is true and
come to the realization that all you have defined and ever shall is due to
what you have perceived.      ..............and subject to deception.

things

Whatever characteristics you use.

describe
true
will
does

can
commonly

It is not for me to define the love you feel, it is for you to do that.
When you do, you will note that perception is required.

No, as stated, it is not accurate for you to assume that you "know"
anything.


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
;>:Define anything that you have not beuilt from perceptive data.  When you
:can
;>;not, you will have proved it to yourself.
:
;>In what way is a thing built from another thing be inseparable from that
:>other thing?  Once I have decided from having analyzed so many different
;>perceptions that I want some characterists be described by making a
:>definition, I would know what the definition is; and it is no longer
;>relevant whether the perceptions I have analyzed that led me to that
:>decision actually contain those characterists.  I would know my definition
;>even if all those perceptions are forged.  Hence definition is separate
:>from perceptions.
;
:
;Do not be so intent upon convincing yourself that what you say is true and
:come to the realization that all you have defined and ever shall is due to
;what you have perceived.      ..............and subject to deception.

Why do I need convincing?  Did you read what I wrote at all?  Please show
how I can be deceived in my knowledge of my definition, even when all
perceptions are forged.

;>:>Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my definition of flat which
:>;>does not convey information, which does not include the claim that
;>:>perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot be generated by
:>;>something that is not flat, and that it does not include the set of
;things
:>:>I believe to be flat, and that it does not include the claim that the
;>;>definition can't change later.  If you can't show that, then you are
:>:>indeed throwing baseless assertions.
;
:
;>;When you define flat, you must use terms which are based upon perception.
:>:Simple, elegant and concise, not difficult at all.
;
:>What terms?  Definition are not in general describeable in words.
;
:
;Whatever characteristics you use.

I can try, but why?  What does whether I can be deceived in my knowledge
of my definitions has to do whith whether I have to use terms that are
based upon perception when I need to choose words to form sentences that
may or may not be sufficient to convey the definition to you?

:>:Love have many definitions, the Greek used at least four different
;>;definitions in reference to the human emotive condition.  Which human
:>:condition do you refer to?
;
:>I only have one definition of "love".  Please express it in words to the
;>extent that if there is anything I perceive that I would consider matching
:>the definition of love, then the words you said to have expressed it would
;>also qualify it as love; and anything I perceive that I would consider
:>not matching the definition of love, then the words you say to have express
;>it would also disqualify it as love.
:
;
:It is not for me to define the love you feel, it is for you to do that.
;When you do, you will note that perception is required.

Why do I have to do that?  Love for me is not describable in words.
It proves that definition and words to describe it are two different
things.

:>:>;>;(deceived, none the less)
;
:>:>;>Which has nothing to do with whether I can know my definitions beyond
;>;>:>deception, right?
:
;
:>:>;You can not know deception, thus you can know nothing beyond it.
;
:>:>But of course I can know something to be true of deception -- the
;>;>definitions.
:
;>;This will do you little good, even if it were accurate, if you remain
:>:deceived.
;
:>But it would show that you were wrong to say I can't have knowledge of
;>anything in the narrow sense of "know".
:
;
:No, as stated, it is not accurate for you to assume that you "know"
;anything.

What is it not?  Show that I cannot know my definitions to the narrow
sense of "know".  Show that I may be deceived in knowing my definition
of flat which

  1) does not convey information,
  2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definition
     of "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat,
  3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat,
  4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later,
  5) does not consist of words I may choose to use to describe it to
     somebody else.

;>:> Deception is defined to be the conveying of false information.
:>;>I can know my definition are beyond deception for they do not convey
;>:>information.
:
;
:>;Yes, they do convey all the description you convey to and ascribe to them.
;
:>What do you mean by "convey to"?  From where to where?
;
:
;From the point where the definition is associated, to the point where it is
:used next.

Show them to be different points.

:>;>Show that to be true.  Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my
;>:>definition of flat which does not convey information, which does not
:>;>include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of "flat"
;cannot
:>:>be generated by something that is not flat, and that it does not include
;>;>the set of things I believe to be flat, and that it does not include the
:>:>claim that the definition can't change later.
;
:>:Rather than attempt a guess, this time, at what you mean, I must say that
;I
:>;do not really see your point, nor am I able to make sense of the extremely
;>:complex sentence structure and tense changes.  Please break it down into
:>;smaller sentences which actually accomplish the communication you desire.
;>:You do not know a definition at all, you merely attach significance (and
:>;other definitions) to it by means of previous perceptions.
;
:>Sure:
;
:>Please show that I can be deceived in my knowledge of my defintion of flat,
;>which is a defintion that:
:
;>1) does not convey information.
:
;
:It does convey the information which associates anything as flat and is
;subject to deception.

Sorry, that is perception.  Associating things with "flat" is not part
of the definition.

;>2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of
:>   "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat.
;
:
;Try that, you might be surprised.

Try what?  (2) says my definition of flat does not include the claim that
perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot be generated by
something that is not flat.  What is to be tried?

;>3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat.
:
;
:If it does not include something, it does not aid or deter the fact that it
;is built by perceptions, thus this is of no consequence.

Wrong.  I do not need to have a set of things I believe to be flat in
order for me to match perceptions with my definitions and decide which
perception meets the definition.

;>4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later.
:
;If the definition "ever" changes, or if the set which belongs to the
:defintion changes, then you have proof that you did not have knowledge of
;the definition, by reason of incomplete data associated with that
:definition.

Wrong again.  I have complete knowledge of my definition before, during,
and after the change.  Whether I will eventually change a defintion is
not part of the definition.


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message
definition

If what you formed your definitions by were deceptions, your assignment
would be faulty.  If they were not deceptions but later became deceptive,
your ability to match your perception is faulty.  If your perceptions formed
your definitions accurately  to a degree, but then later your definition
changed due to increased awareness, once more your definition was faulty and
remains subject to possible deception.  At any method or level you choose,
your knowledge is not absolute, including how you assign any given
definition.

perception.

It is the terms, associated with perception that you utilize to form your
definition.  Those terms, and the perceptions which you acquire to build,
relate or inculcate those terms which allow your deception.

matching
would
express

Because love is a subjective emotion unique to individual perception and
experience such that the definition varies as to what perceptions and
experiences you have acquired.  Your inability to describe it is of no
consequence in the face of facts which indicate you build said definition
from perceptions.

What is it not?  I assume this may be another error in what you intended to
write.

This is accomplished elsewhere.  Refer to that post please.

them.

is

Time shows it well enough.  I have no task to perform in this end.

include
the
that
extremely
desire.
flat,

Yes.....it most certainly is.

Try what you assume can not be done, of course.

it

You err to the point of lunacy.  If you have or do not have a set which
matches perceptions to definitions is not in question.  The fact is that
perceptions are the basis for all your definitions, thus you have no choice
or decision to make in the matter.  All that is left is discovery of what
you do not know, part of which may be deception.

Pardon my inturruption to your dream that you might be correct.  First you
have no knowledge (in the narrow sense of the word which you yourself
dictate) at all.  Second, you can not possibly know (in that same sense)
that your perceptions are correct which by any means,you assign to any given
definition.  Thirdly but not least, any definition you might assign is
subject to the same deception as any limited human due to your limited
abilities to perceive in accuracy.  Your arbitrary interpretation of what
you believe you define is of no consequence in the face of reality which
occurs in spite of your assertions.

ONE


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
:Wen-King Su wrote in message
;>;>:Define anything that you have not beuilt from perceptive data.  When you
:>:can
;>;>;not, you will have proved it to yourself.
:>:
;>;>In what way is a thing built from another thing be inseparable from that
:>:>other thing?  Once I have decided from having analyzed so many different
;>;>perceptions that I want some characterists be described by making a
:>:>definition, I would know what the definition is; and it is no longer
;>;>relevant whether the perceptions I have analyzed that led me to that
:>:>decision actually contain those characterists.  I would know my
;definition
:>;>even if all those perceptions are forged.  Hence definition is separate
;>:>from perceptions.
:>;
;>:
:>;Do not be so intent upon convincing yourself that what you say is true and
;>:come to the realization that all you have defined and ever shall is due to
:>;what you have perceived.      ..............and subject to deception.
;>
:>Why do I need convincing?  Did you read what I wrote at all?  Please show
;>how I can be deceived in my knowledge of my definition, even when all
:>perceptions are forged.
;
:
;If what you formed your definitions by were deceptions, your assignment
:would be faulty.  If they were not deceptions but later became deceptive,
;your ability to match your perception is faulty.  If your perceptions formed
:your definitions accurately  to a degree, but then later your definition
;changed due to increased awareness, once more your definition was faulty and
:remains subject to possible deception.  At any method or level you choose,
;your knowledge is not absolute, including how you assign any given
:definition.

What do you mean by faulty for a definition, and how does that relate to
whether I can know my definitions.   But didn't everything you show has
to do with that fact that it is perceptions that is deceived?  Doesn't
in every case I still know 100% what my definition is?

:>:>What terms?  Definition are not in general describeable in words.
;
:
;>;Whatever characteristics you use.
:
;>I can try, but why?  What does whether I can be deceived in my knowledge
:>of my definitions has to do whith whether I have to use terms that are
;>based upon perception when I need to choose words to form sentences that
:>may or may not be sufficient to convey the definition to you?
;
:
;It is the terms, associated with perception that you utilize to form your
:definition.  Those terms, and the perceptions which you acquire to build,
;relate or inculcate those terms which allow your deception.

It is?  Show that to be true.  Even a baby who doesn't have any words can
form definition.  They certainly don't need to have the word "nipple" to
have a definition that when described in words we know: nipple-like.

;>:>:Love have many definitions, the Greek used at least four different
:>;>;definitions in reference to the human emotive condition.  Which human
;>:>:condition do you refer to?
:
;>:>I only have one definition of "love".  Please express it in words to the
:>;>extent that if there is anything I perceive that I would consider
;matching
:>:>the definition of love, then the words you said to have expressed it
;would
:>;>also qualify it as love; and anything I perceive that I would consider
;>:>not matching the definition of love, then the words you say to have
:express
;>;>it would also disqualify it as love.
:
;
:>:It is not for me to define the love you feel, it is for you to do that.
;>;When you do, you will note that perception is required.
:
;>Why do I have to do that?  Love for me is not describable in words.
:>It proves that definition and words to describe it are two different
;>things.
:
;
:Because love is a subjective emotion unique to individual perception and
;experience such that the definition varies as to what perceptions and
:experiences you have acquired.  Your inability to describe it is of no
;consequence in the face of facts which indicate you build said definition
:from perceptions.

That question aside, do you now agree you were wrong that a definition
necessarily can be described in words?

;>:>:>;>;(deceived, none the less)
:
;>:>:>;>Which has nothing to do with whether I can know my definitions beyond
:>;>;>:>deception, right?
;
:
;>:>:>;You can not know deception, thus you can know nothing beyond it.
:
;>:>:>But of course I can know something to be true of deception -- the
:>;>;>definitions.
;
:>;>;This will do you little good, even if it were accurate, if you remain
;>:>:deceived.
:
;>:>But it would show that you were wrong to say I can't have knowledge of
:>;>anything in the narrow sense of "know".
;
:
;>:No, as stated, it is not accurate for you to assume that you "know"
:>;anything.
;
:
;>What is it not?  Show that I cannot know my definitions to the narrow
:>sense of "know".  Show that I may be deceived in knowing my definition
;>of flat which
:
;
:What is it not?  I assume this may be another error in what you intended to
;write.

Right.  I meant to say "why is it not".  Why is it not?  Show that I
cannot know my definitions to the narrow sense of "know".  Show that I
may be deceived in knowing my definition of flat which...

;>  1) does not convey information,
:>  2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definition
;>     of "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat,
:>  3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat,
;>  4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later,
:>  5) does not consist of words I may choose to use to describe it to
;>     somebody else.
:
;
:This is accomplished elsewhere.  Refer to that post please.

Please show that it was accomplished elsewhere.  All I have seen is
your addressing  issues not related to the points under each point.

:>;>:> Deception is defined to be the conveying of false information.
;>:>;>I can know my definition are beyond deception for they do not convey
:>;>:>information.
;
:
;>:>;Yes, they do convey all the description you convey to and ascribe to
:them.
;
:>:>What do you mean by "convey to"?  From where to where?
;
:
;>;From the point where the definition is associated, to the point where it
:is
;>:used next.
:
;>Show them to be different points.
:
;
:Time shows it well enough.  I have no task to perform in this end.

In space, I mean.  Or are you going to show that information needs to be
conveyed just to get from one point in time to another as does with space?

:>:>;>Show that to be true.  Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my
;>;>:>definition of flat which does not convey information, which does not
:>:>;>include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of "flat"
;>;cannot
:>:>:>be generated by something that is not flat, and that it does not
;include
:>;>;>the set of things I believe to be flat, and that it does not include
;the
:>:>:>claim that the definition can't change later.
;>;
:>:>:Rather than attempt a guess, this time, at what you mean, I must say
;that
:>;I
;>:>;do not really see your point, nor am I able to make sense of the
:extremely
;>;>:complex sentence structure and tense changes.  Please break it down into
:>:>;smaller sentences which actually accomplish the communication you
;desire.
:>;>:You do not know a definition at all, you merely attach significance (and
;>:>;other definitions) to it by means of previous perceptions.
:>;
;>:>Sure:
:>;
;>:>Please show that I can be deceived in my knowledge of my defintion of
:flat,
;>;>which is a defintion that:
:>:
;>;>1) does not convey information.
:>:
;>;
:>:It does convey the information which associates anything as flat and is
;>;subject to deception.
:>
;>Sorry, that is perception.  Associating things with "flat" is not part
:>of the definition.
;
:
;Yes.....it most certainly is.

Then how come mine doesn't?  Didn't I mentioned that you have shown you to
be unreasonable already, so lets start talk about me.

;>;>2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of
:>:>   "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat.
;
:
;>;Try that, you might be surprised.
:
;>Try what?  (2) says my definition of flat does not include the claim that
:>perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot be generated by
;>something that is not flat.  What is to be tried?
:
;
:Try what you assume can not be done, of course.

I assumed what cannot be done?  I said my definition of flat does not
include such and such.  There is no can or cannot about it.

:>;>3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat.
;>:
:>;
;>:If it does not include something, it does not aid or deter the fact that
:it
;>;is built by perceptions, thus this is of no consequence.
:>
;>Wrong.  I do not need to have a set of things I believe to be flat in
:>order for me to match perceptions with my definitions and decide which
;>perception meets the definition.
:
;
:You err to the point of lunacy.  If you have or do not have a set which
;matches perceptions to definitions is not in question.

Then why do you answer to point (3)?  Point (3) simply said I do not need
to have a set of things I believe to be flat in order for me to match
perceptions with my definitions and decide which perception meets the
definition.  If you don't disagree with that, why do you answer to it?

;The fact is that
:perceptions are the basis for all your definitions, thus you have no choice
;or decision to make in the matter.  All that is left is discovery of what
:you do not know, part of which may be deception.

What are you talking about?  What do you mean by "basis for all my
definitions?" What does that have to do with point (3).

:>;>4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later.
;>:
:>;If the definition "ever" changes, or if the set which belongs to the
;>:defintion changes, then you have proof that you did not have knowledge of
:>;the definition, by reason of incomplete data associated with that
;>:definition.
:>
;>Wrong again.  I have complete knowledge of my definition before, during,
:>and after the change.  Whether I will eventually change a defintion is
;>not part of the definition.
:
;Pardon my inturruption to your dream that you might be correct.  First you
:have no knowledge (in the narrow sense of the word which you yourself
;dictate) at all.

Show that I can have no knowledge of my definitions.

;Second, you can not possibly know (in that same sense)
:that your perceptions are correct which by any means,you assign to any given
;definition.

What do you mean by correct, and what does that has to do with my knowledge
of my definitions?

;Thirdly but not least, any definition you might assign is
:subject to the same deception as any limited human due to your limited
;abilities to perceive in accuracy.

Again, what does that has to do with my knowledge of my definitions?

;Your arbitrary interpretation of what
:you believe you define is of no consequence in the face of reality which
;occurs in spite of your assertions.

What do you mean arbitrary interpretation?  I have a very precise definition
of it.  My definitions is merely the criteria that I look for in perceptions
that will help me decide whether the perception presents a match to that
criteria.   Not arbitrary at all.  You may think differently, but we have
established that  are unreasonable already.  What about me?


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message

formed
and

I thought you knew you definitions.  Apparently not, for you continually ask
what things mean.  Does this not indicate you are not in knowledge of those
things you claim to be?

Please illustrate to us his definition then so we may verify your calim.  If
you can not relate this by words then it is not a definition.  Even babies
will associate words with objects, feelings and motives after being exposed
to them even while they lack the ability to utter them.  It is the
perceptions they acquired that they later associate with the words which
define those perceptions.  You analogy fails to prove your point but
illustrates mine adequately.

the
it
consider

No.

beyond

to

Absolute knolwedge requires absolute perception which you do not possess.
It is quite simple, actually.

Then you see incorrectly.

Information is time dependent as all things are to humans.  Space is merely
another manner in which time is represented.

include

down into smaller sentences which actually accomplish the communication you
significance (and

<smile>  We are talking about what you do not know.

of

Yes, there is, but you seem unwilling to try.  Why is that?

I answer to point three because you asked it.  You must have perceptions in
order to have definitions.

choice

Point three is that you are mistaken when you belive you have a definition
independent from perception.

of

Define anything that is not built with perceptions, then you will show
yourself.

given

Absolute.

Absolute.

definition
perceptions

Precision is open to interpretation.  For example: define the universe.  You
will note that even while you have not seen the entire universe your
definition will attempt to describe what you think you know of it.  You will
do so with words that are based upon your perception of what you know in a
relative way of this universe.  That is about you.

ONE


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
:Wen-King Su wrote in message
;
:>;If what you formed your definitions by were deceptions, your assignment
;>:would be faulty.  If they were not deceptions but later became deceptive,
:>;your ability to match your perception is faulty.  If your perceptions
;formed
:>:your definitions accurately  to a degree, but then later your definition
;>;changed due to increased awareness, once more your definition was faulty
:and
;>:remains subject to possible deception.  At any method or level you choose,
:>;your knowledge is not absolute, including how you assign any given
;>:definition.
:
;>What do you mean by faulty for a definition, and how does that relate to
:>whether I can know my definitions.   But didn't everything you show has
;>to do with that fact that it is perceptions that is deceived?  Doesn't
:>in every case I still know 100% what my definition is?
;
:
;I thought you knew you definitions.  Apparently not, for you continually ask
:what things mean.  Does this not indicate you are not in knowledge of those
;things you claim to be?

Then you are apparently wrong.  I ask because your definition is apparently
different from mine, and so to understand what you mean, I ask you to
describe your definitions.

;>;It is the terms, associated with perception that you utilize to form your
:>:definition.  Those terms, and the perceptions which you acquire to build,
;>;relate or inculcate those terms which allow your deception.
:
;>It is?  Show that to be true.  Even a baby who doesn't have any words can
:>form definition.  They certainly don't need to have the word "nipple" to
;>have a definition that when described in words we know: nipple-like.
:
;
:Please illustrate to us his definition then so we may verify your calim.  If
;you can not relate this by words then it is not a definition.  Even babies
:will associate words with objects, feelings and motives after being exposed
;to them even while they lack the ability to utter them.  It is the
:perceptions they acquired that they later associate with the words which
;define those perceptions.  You analogy fails to prove your point but
:illustrates mine adequately.

But of course it is a definition.  A definition is used, among other
things, to match to perceptions.  And a baby will suckle on things that
matched their definition of being "nipple like", even for babies that are
born deaf.

:>;>Why do I have to do that?  Love for me is not describable in words.
;>:>It proves that definition and words to describe it are two different
:>;>things.
;
:
;>:Because love is a subjective emotion unique to individual perception and
:>;experience such that the definition varies as to what perceptions and
;>:experiences you have acquired.  Your inability to describe it is of no
:>;consequence in the face of facts which indicate you build said definition
;>:from perceptions.
:
;>That question aside, do you now agree you were wrong that a definition
:>necessarily can be described in words?
;
:
;No.

Then please express the definition of "love" in words.

:>Right.  I meant to say "why is it not".  Why is it not?  Show that I
;>cannot know my definitions to the narrow sense of "know".  Show that I
:>may be deceived in knowing my definition of flat which...
;
:
;Absolute knolwedge requires absolute perception which you do not possess.
:It is quite simple, actually.

No it doesn't.  Absolute knowledge of my definition only require that I be
the one who made the definition.  It is quite simple, actually.

:>;>  1) does not convey information,
;>:>  2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definition
:>;>     of "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat,
;>:>  3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat,
:>;>  4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later,
;>:>  5) does not consist of words I may choose to use to describe it to
:>;>     somebody else.
;
:
;>:This is accomplished elsewhere.  Refer to that post please.
:
;>Please show that it was accomplished elsewhere.  All I have seen is
:>your addressing  issues not related to the points under each point.
;
:
;Then you see incorrectly.

Then show them to be incorrrect.

;>:>;>:> Deception is defined to be the conveying of false information.
:>;>:>;>I can know my definition are beyond deception for they do not convey
;>:>;>:>information.
:
;
:>;>:>;Yes, they do convey all the description you convey to and ascribe to
;>:them.
:
;>:>:>What do you mean by "convey to"?  From where to where?
:
;
:>;>;From the point where the definition is associated, to the point where it
;>:is used next.
:
;>;>Show them to be different points.
:
;
:>:Time shows it well enough.  I have no task to perform in this end.
;
:>In space, I mean.  Or are you going to show that information needs to be
;>conveyed just to get from one point in time to another as does with space?
:
;
:Information is time dependent as all things are to humans.  Space is merely
;another manner in which time is represented.

But in what way does that show that information needs to be conveyed just
to get from one point in time to another?

;>:>:>;>Show that to be true.  Then show that I may be deceived in knowing my
:>;>;>:>definition of flat which does not convey information, which does not
;>:>:>;>include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton of "flat"
:>;>;cannot be generated by something that is not flat, and that it does not
;>;include the set of things I believe to be flat, and that it does not
:include
;>;the claim that the definition can't change later.
:
;>:>:>:Rather than attempt a guess, this time, at what you mean, I must say
:>;that I  do not really see your point, nor am I able to make sense of the
;>:extremely complex sentence structure and tense changes.  Please break it
:down into smaller sentences which actually accomplish the communication you
;>;desire. You do not know a definition at all, you merely attach
:significance (and
;>;>:>;other definitions) to it by means of previous perceptions.
:
;>;>:>Sure:
:
;>;>:>Please show that I can be deceived in my knowledge of my defintion of
:>:flat, which is a defintion that:
;
:>;>;>1) does not convey information.
;
:>:>:It does convey the information which associates anything as flat and is
;>;>;subject to deception.
:
;
:>;>Sorry, that is perception.  Associating things with "flat" is not part
;>:>of the definition.
:
;
:>;Yes.....it most certainly is.
;
:>Then how come mine doesn't?  Didn't I mentioned that you have shown you to
;>be unreasonable already, so lets start talk about me.
:
;
:<smile>  We are talking about what you do not know.

No wonder you have so much difficulty with this discussion.  I was talking
about what I do know.  Now, associating things with "flat" is not part
of my definition of flat, so in what way can the fact that the things I
can associate it with cause me to be deceived about my knowledge of my
definitions?

:>;>;>2) does not include the claim that perceptions matching the definiton
;of
:>:>:>   "flat" cannot be generated by something that is not flat.
;
:>;>;Try that, you might be surprised.
;
:>;>Try what?  (2) says my definition of flat does not include the claim that
;>:>perceptions matching the definiton of "flat" cannot be generated by
:>;>something that is not flat.  What is to be tried?
;
:
;>:Try what you assume can not be done, of course.
:
;
:>I assumed what cannot be done?  I said my definition of flat does not
;>include such and such.  There is no can or cannot about it.
:
;
:Yes, there is, but you seem unwilling to try.  Why is that?

Then show what it is you say there is that can be tried.

:>:>;>3) does not include the set of things I believe to be flat.
;
:
;>;>:If it does not include something, it does not aid or deter the fact that
:>:it is built by perceptions, thus this is of no consequence.
;
:>;>Wrong.  I do not need to have a set of things I believe to be flat in
;>:>order for me to match perceptions with my definitions and decide which
:>;>perception meets the definition.
;
:>:You err to the point of lunacy.  If you have or do not have a set which
;>;matches perceptions to definitions is not in question.
:
;>Then why do you answer to point (3)?  Point (3) simply said I do not need
:>to have a set of things I believe to be flat in order for me to match
;>perceptions with my definitions and decide which perception meets the
:>definition.  If you don't disagree with that, why do you answer to it?
;
:
;I answer to point three because you asked it.  You must have perceptions in
:order to have definitions.

I asked it?  What question I asked of it?

:>;The fact is that
;>:perceptions are the basis for all your definitions, thus you have no
:choice
;>;or decision to make in the matter.  All that is left is discovery of what
:>:you do not know, part of which may be deception.
;
:>What are you talking about?  What do you mean by "basis for all my
;>definitions?" What does that have to do with point (3).
:
;
:Point three is that you are mistaken when you belive you have a definition
;independent from perception.

Where did I say in point 3 that they are independent from perception?  I
said they do not include the set of things I believe to be flat.

;>:>;>4) does not include the claim that the definition can't change later.
:
;>:>;If the definition "ever" changes, or if the set which belongs to the
:>;>:defintion changes, then you have proof that you did not have knowledge
;of
:>:>;the definition, by reason of incomplete data associated with that
;>;>:definition.
:
;>;>Wrong again.  I have complete knowledge of my definition before, during,
:>:>and after the change.  Whether I will eventually change a defintion is
;>;>not part of the definition.
:
;>;Pardon my inturruption to your dream that you might be correct.  First you
:>:have no knowledge (in the narrow sense of the word which you yourself
;>;dictate) at all.
:
;>Show that I can have no knowledge of my definitions.
:
;
:Define anything that is not built with perceptions, then you will show
;yourself.

What do you mean by "built" with perceptions?  I certainly have "built"
many definitions after having perceptions, but they never-the-less does
not contain the set of percepitons in them.

;>;Second, you can not possibly know (in that same sense)
:>:that your perceptions are correct which by any means,you assign to any
;given
:>;definition.
;
:>What do you mean by correct, and what does that has to do with my knowledge
;>of my definitions?
:
;
:Absolute.

What do you mean by absolute?

:>;Thirdly but not least, any definition you might assign is
;>:subject to the same deception as any limited human due to your limited
:>;abilities to perceive in accuracy.
;
:>Again, what does that has to do with my knowledge of my definitions?
;
:
;Absolute.

Absolute what?  What would that has to do with my knowledge of my definitions?

;>;Your arbitrary interpretation of what
:>:you believe you define is of no consequence in the face of reality which
;>;occurs in spite of your assertions.
:
;>What do you mean arbitrary interpretation?  I have a very precise
:definition
;>of it.  My definitions is merely the criteria that I look for in
:perceptions
;>that will help me decide whether the perception presents a match to that
:>criteria.   Not arbitrary at all.  You may think differently, but we have
;>established that  are unreasonable already.  What about me?
:
;Precision is open to interpretation.  For example: define the universe.  You
:will note that even while you have not seen the entire universe your
;definition will attempt to describe what you think you know of it.  You will
:do so with words that are based upon your perception of what you know in a
;relative way of this universe.  That is about you.

I will do so with words?  Sorry, I do no such thing.  I would describe
to you my definition in words, but my definition itself isn't defined in
words.  And in your example, what is "relative" in term of knowledge is
that of the actually universe and how closely my definition represents
the actual universe -- both are function of perceptions, and neither of
which are part of the definition or what I know of my definition, which
remains absolute.


author: Dave Thompson

subject: Re: Church and State Need Not be Seperate, Quote the Bugboy

text:
"Scot McDermid" <[email]> wrote in message
news:zIc0e.6845$[email]...

You know the nature of an elephant, and what invisible is.

No one has yet, or will, be able to say what god is, so logically to say
that something you don't know the nature of does not exist is not rational
thought.

When you can define "god", then you can claim god doesn't exist, or does
exist. Theists and strong atheists are in the same boat from a logical
perspective.


author: Christopher A. Lee

text:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:20:47 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
<[email]> wrote:

No. They're not. Theists define their deity. The strong atheist draws
some rather obvious conclusions from what the theists tell him.

All to  often what they tell him describes a logical impossibility.

But in any case, the vast majority claim there is evidence but cop out
of providing it. Every time they do this, is a data point against.
Again, the conclusion is obvious.

And in both cases falsifiable.


author: wcb

text:
Dave Thompson wrote:

No.  God has been well defined for may centuries.
This overarching claim, personal, creator of all,
omnipotent, omnibenevolent omniscient, is not really
a definition of a god but of a class of god. Maximum gods.

It was a loose and open ended definition meantto take in
all further claims without enumerating them all or having
to forsee them all.

The problem is, it soon collapses under its own internal
contradictions. Thereby wiping out that entire class of
gods as a possibility.

And thus taking all subclaims and sub-specific claims
with it. and that is teh beauty of strong atheism.
Don't take out individual gods, take out entire
classes of them.

With the top of the line model defeated, the rest simply
is actually not very satisfying.  Who wants to move to
a much lesser god?


text:
"Christopher A. Lee" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

They do more than this. They reject the existance of something they
themselves can't define. All they are doing otherwise is rejecting a
definition, which would make them just weak atheists (I don't believe in
(your) god(s).

When it involves an all knowing creator. If someone defines god as existence
or a natural constant (which they are  free to do), a strong atheist can't
reject the obvious, all they can do is reject that the definition is god.

No, your conclusion approaches certainty, but does not reach it. To do so
provides faith, which strong atheists rely on, just as theists.

Absolutely wrong. You cannot falsify every possibility of what god might be.
What is unknowable is not falsifiable. The notion that it can is illogical.


author: Scot McDermid

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

ummm no.  Strong atheists rejecting the theist's definition would be
best stated as "I believe your god(s) don't exist".
After strong atheists have investigated and rejected all the available
proposed gods it is a matter of induction to conclude that all god(s)
don't exist.


text:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:08:24 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
<[email]> wrote:

It's not their problem, and they're not rejecting anything. Why
pretend it is and that they are?

"Reject" is a loaded word that presumes there is something to reject.

They don't come up with deities to CONCLUDE they don't exist. Theists
come up with them. And all the atheist has to go on is what the theist
says.

What part of CONCLUSION are you pretending you don't understand?

What do you imagine you're achieving by lying about faith where there
is none?

Why not address what I wrote?


author: Steve Mading

text:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:08:24 -0700, Dave Thompson <[email]> wrote:

Okay, so let's say that "god" is now a term that is synonymous with "existence",
great - then someone should be able to say "one theory is that god came
into being during the Big Bang, and god is an unthinking collection of matter,
widely dispersed, with no sentience whatsoever, no will, and no control over
what it does."  And that would be consistent with that definition, and the
person who said god equals existence would acknowlege that with no argument,
right?  Obviously not.

Someone using the pantheistic "existence=god" defintion is NOT ending the
definition there.  There's a heck of a lot more to it than just that.  They
are assuming at least sentience of some sort, and a personality.

So, no I don't have to believe their god exists just because I believe
the universe exists.  I just have to point out that they didn't finish their
definition if they just left it at that.


text:
"Scot McDermid" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b0l0e.8282$[email]...

Not according to strong atheists.

You really don't get it.


author: Fenris

text:
"Christopher A. Lee" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Is there some sort of conspiracy against you and your dimwitted cohorts?
You keep accusing people of pretending to not understand.  Perhaps they just
disagree with you and your faulty logic.

First, he is pretending to not understand, now he is lying.  You have a very
strange style of discussing things.  I get the impression that most of your
discussions are with people that already agree with you on the main points.
You seem to respond to disagreement in a very childlike manner.


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

I see I made a mistake in my previous post.
Let me try to clear up my statement:

My statement:
    Strong atheists take the theist's definition at face value
    and reject that He/She/It exists.   Strong atheists say "I
    believe your god(s) don't exist.

Now would you like me to quote some resources?  Here's one:


subject: Re: SuperAtheism -- stronger than Strong, eats weak Atheism for lunch -- Church and State Need Not be Seperate, Quote the Bugboy

text:
" "- Prof. Jonezï¿½"" <[email]> wrote in message
news:wSp0e.65$[email]...

In a court of law, using the word "believe" implies some
doubt.   (ie.  I believe I saw the defendant at the scene of the crime)
And also, in a court of law the level of certainty of the witnesses
is relevant to the credibility of their testimony.

In philosophical discussions, whether you say "I believe X",
"I claim X", "X is true" or simply "X"  it is all an assertion of X.
Whether you are absolutely certain or only partially certain you
are asserting X.   In a philosophical discussion about the
objective truth of X only objective evidence should be considered.
Your level of certainty is irrelevant.


text:
" "- Prof. Jonezï¿½"" <[email]> wrote in message
news:1Xz0e.2$[email]...

My post was intended to compare the scientific or philosophical
usage of 'believe' to the court of law example.

No, E=mc^2 is objectively provable and not subjective to a person's
beliefs nor inebriated condition.  On the other hand, if the same
incredible, drunkard, proven habitual liar testified in court that
he was certain he saw pixies swimming in his beer then I think
the court would/should assign doubt to it.   ("seeing" IS subjective
to a person's beliefs and inebriated condition.)

[where X is a proposition]

Under the circumstances, I really don't care.   I care about the
truth of X, not your level of certainty.

Strong?  yes:  ie. "I accept the proposition "God does not exist" as true"
Super / ï¿½ber / Ultra Atheism ?   no.  I believe not.


text:
" "- Prof. Jonezï¿½"" <[email]> wrote in message
news:WwH0e.124$[email]...

The digression was due to one of my many wonderful experiences
here on alt.atheism.   One kind individual took great pains to explain
the usage of the word "believe" by means of a court of law example.
I wanted to compare and contrast in order to make it clear that
we are NOT talking about the way "belief" is using in a court of law.

I would hope that they disregard the certainty of the
person making the assertion and concentrate on the
assertion, the arguments, and the evidence.

[is there] Super / ï¿½ber / Ultra Atheism ?   no.  I believe not.

enhhhh... whatever.


author: Janne Kivel{

subject: Re: Ethnic violence in ESTONIA Against Jews

text:
[email] writes:

Just because Sergey Vizhnyuk says so doesn't mean that this sentence
has any base in reality. And even if this claim were true, would it
have any relevance today? Serega, what do you think was the fate
of the Estonian SS men after the war in the hands of the Soviets?
Do you believe they led their lives happily everafter?

Janne Kivela"
      "N{m{kin pusakat vain viisysiysi. Ja kaikista valtakunnan..."
                     ----- Simo vaatehuoneelta


author: [redacted]

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Janne Kivel{) writes:

Unless it didn't have relevance to todays situation
in Estonia, nobody would have been interested in feasts
of Estonian volunteers from SS fifty years ago.

No less happily than Soviet POWs in the hands of Germans and their
Estonian lakeys.

Serega & Co


text:
[email] writes:

Tell me, how many Soviet POWs survived in the hands of Stalin when they
had returned home?

Janne Kivela"
      "N{m{kin pusakat vain viisysiysi. Ja kaikista valtakunnan..."
                     ----- Simo vaatehuoneelta


author: ~TRUTH 666~

subject: Bush Lied To Senators About Drones That Could Hit US

text:
Senator says briefing claimed drones could hit US
17/12/2003 - 19:34:47

The Bush Administration told senior politicians before the Iraq war
that Saddam Hussein had developed drones which could strike the east
coast of the US with weapons of mass destruction, a Senator has
claimed.

Democrat Bill Nelson said he was among around 75 Senators who received
the classified briefing shortly before a Congressional vote last
October, which authorised the removal of Saddam by force.

He said the Senators were told that Iraq had developed unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) which could dump biological or chemical agents,
including anthrax, on east coast cities, including Washington and New
York.

"They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that
capability," Nelson said in a conference-call press briefing, reported
by the Florida Today newspaper.

The Tallahassee Senator said the intelligence contradicted other
reports senators had received before the war.

"If that is an intelligence failureï¿½ we better find that out so we
don't have an intelligence failure in the future," he said.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department
of Defence, which declined to comment.

President Bush referred to UAVs, otherwise known as drones, during a
speech in October last year.

He warned of a "grave threat" from a "growing fleet" of the vehicles
which might be used to carry out a September 11-style attack.

He said: "We have also discovered that Iraq has a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse
chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.

"We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for
missions targeting the United States."

But Senator Nelson said the classified briefing went further, warning
that Iraq had actually developed ways of hitting the eastern seaboard
with drones.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=89067548&p=89x68z54


author: steve

subject: Re: Bush Lied To Senators About Drones That Could Hit US

text:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:01:25 -0800, ~TRUTH 666~ wrote:

This was news in the rest of the world a year ago......when the three
balsa wood 'drones' that could fly 2-3 miles were 'revealed'.

Why is it the US mainstream media digs this stuff up a year AFTER the
story appears everywhere else?


author: Dimwits

subject: The dumbest ugliest "women" in America are in Charlotte North Carolina tonight.

text:
It's a good thing there are plenty of blacks in North Carolina
so they can get laid.


author: Ramon F. Herrera

subject: Re: All groups with much higher that average intelligence are Liberal

text:
On Sep 5, 10:40 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <[email]> wrote:

The only *arguable* exception to the "Ramon Rule" is Wall Street
types.

-RFH


author: Michael A. Terrell

subject: Re: Democrats: All style, no substance

text:
STEADY EDDY wrote:

   Yawn.  Who watches much TV these days, when there are plenty of
projects and life to keep you busy?  I was bored to death working in
television, waiting for something to go wrong so I could do something
other than routine maintenance.  It was a catch 22.  If you were good,
there wasn't much to do and if you weren't, everything needed
overhauled.


author: STEADY EDDY

subject: Re: Democrats: All style, no substance

text:
On Sep 5, 7:38 am, George Plimpton <[email]> wrote:

Glittering Generalities - "People in Hollywood - all style and no
substance". I happen to know a few people in Hollywood. They work damn
hard to earn a living so you can sit back on your fat ass and watch
NCIS or your favorite movie "The man with no brain"


author: Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E

subject: Re: New York Times: Democrats are intellectually "exhausted"

text:
On Sep 5, 11:56 am, deep <[email]> wrote:

You just opened the window for a glimpse at the liberal mindset. You
people think, for some unknown reason, that since you are infinitely
more "intelligient" than the "average" citizen then it's not only your
God given right, but a responsibilty to tell everyone else how they
should live, spend their money, what to eat, what to drive, how much
to eat and drink and what to set your thermostat to. Of course, those
same rules don't apply to you because you, being a highly educated
individual with a degree in the "arts", don't have to abide by those
same rules. Thank GOD you are in the minority.


text:
On Sep 5, 12:40 pm, deep <[email]> wrote:

I hate to be the one to break it to you son but you already have rat
parts and feces in your food. Do you think the lettuce and tomatoes
grown in mexico and picked by a diseased third worlder that has never
laid eyes on a flushing toilet, toilet paper or soap gives a rat's ass
what kind of disease he spreads to a flock of starving gringos?
Perhaps you should be more concerned about the Hepatitis you'll catch
from having your head shoved so far up Obama's tortured colon.


author: walt tonne

text:
Speaking of ugly, I suggest Ramon tour a barrio and examine those
disgusting females. (those above 9 years of age)


subject:
Re: The dumbest ugliest "women" in America are in Charlotte North
 Carolina tonight.

text:
On Sep 5, 4:55 am, "Dimwits" <[email]> wrote:

Hell, even a drug addled nigga crackhead wouldn't fuck Debbie
Wasserman-Shultz. Whew !!

http://uglydemocrats.com/

George Carlin once said, "Did you ever notice that the women who are
for abortion are women that you wouldn't want to sleep with in the
first place'? Other examples of ugly Democrats: Hillary Clinton, Janet
Reno, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano.


text:
On Sep 5, 4:55 am, "Dimwits" <[email]> wrote:

Republicans (conservatives in general) have a VERY simplistic mind.
Everything is black and white to them. Their favorite movies are from
Disney (good guy, bad guy) and their hero is John Wayne. They focus on
looks and appearances: the polite and diplomatic act of bowing is
insulting to them.

Liberals have a much more complex mind. They focus in substance and
intellect. Ugly broads like Janet Reno, Napolitano or Golda Meier
would NEVER make it in the Republicans Party. Dumb bimbos (Palin,
Bachmann, O'Donnell) would never make it in the Democratic Party.

Just compare the women in Faux vs. CNN and -specially- MSNBC.

In the Conservative mind:

A good looking person  ==> a good person
A bad looking person   ==> a bad person.

That is why conservatives tend to be racists.

Q.E.D.

-Ramon


subject:
Re: The dumbest ugliest conservative "women" in America are in
 Charlotte North Carolina tonight.

text:
On Sep 5, 4:55 am, "Dimwits" <[email]> wrote:

LOL...rumor is that Sarah Palin is in Charlotte to get lucky.

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT


text:
On Sep 5, 9:30 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <[email]>
wrote:

Get a room. Then you could move to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Iowa,
etc.

-RFH


text:
On Sep 5, 9:53 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <[email]>
wrote:

In any group where there is much higher than average intelligence,
there is a corresponding trend towards Liberalism. That is evident.

-Ramon


subject: All groups with much higher that average intelligence are Liberal

text:
On Sep 5, 9:38 am, George Plimpton <[email]> wrote:

Let's focus of the BRAINS behind Hollywood, from the deal makers to
the CGI wizards to the writers. They are the ones who have the most
influence in the Hollywood ideology.

-Ramon


text:
On Sep 5, 11:32 am, deep <[email]> wrote:

"investment"=Uber-kook codeword for spreading the wealth

Hows that Obama "investment" in shovel ready jobs, infrastructure,
education and "green energy" working for you moonbats?


author: Lancette

text:
http://www.africaglobalvillage.com/images/stories/demo/sport/serena-williams-weekend-040609.jpg

Whoa!

Didn't know this beast was a Democrat ...


author: Homos Are More Important Than A Job And A Home

subject: Re: Democrats: All mouth, no substance

text:
In article <20d39093-aeb8-4228-a20a-
[email]>
STEADY EDDY <[email]> wrote:

Perhaps you should upgrade your circle of peons.


author: Gunner

subject: Re: Democrats: All style, no substance

text:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), STEADY EDDY
<[email]> wrote:

And if the truth be known..few of those hard working stage hands, etc
etc...are Liberals

Gunner,  Californian, with friends in Hollywierd

    "The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq
around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their
40-year 'War on Poverty.' So far, fewer troops have been killed by
hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were
murdered in Washington, DC, last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to
262 murders in DC.)  Ann Coulter


author: George Plimpton

subject: Re: Democrats: All style, no substance

text:
On 9/5/2012 11:44 AM, STEADY EDDY wrote:

I don't watch TV or Hollywood movies at all.  Your "friends" in
Hollywood are *precisely* about the elevation of style over substance.
They write and produce shitty fiction.


text:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:04:18 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Westergrom,1900
Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E" <[email]> wrote:

Sig material!!!   Bravo!!

    "The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq
around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their
40-year 'War on Poverty.' So far, fewer troops have been killed by
hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were
murdered in Washington, DC, last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to
262 murders in DC.)  Ann Coulter


author: meso-scalar

text:
On 9/5/2012 1:04 PM, Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E wrote:

Well said.


text:
On 9/5/2012 12:04 PM, Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
wrote:

This view of themselves, as endowed with superior intelligence, vision
and above all moral judgment, is what most identifies the modern
illiberal "liberal".  They believe people generally are incompetent to
manage their own affairs, and that their superiority naturally entitles
them to tell others how to live their lives.  As you note, they don't
abide by the same rules they wish to impose on others.


author: Scout

subject: Re: The dumbest ugliest "women" in America are in Charlotte North Carolina tonight.

text:
"Ramon F. Herrera" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Poor Raymon....all he's got left is a cut n' paste of his already refuted
rant.

Sad really. But Macros are about all Raymon has.


author: Harold Burton

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 "Ramon F. Herrera" <[email]> wrote:

You make that sound like a bad thing.

snicker


text:
On 9/5/2012 7:25 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:

No.

No.

The biggest lie you've ever told.  Leftists focus 100% on style; there
is no substance at all.  That's why Hollywood - all style and no
substance - is overwhelmingly Democrat.  It's why Obama has frequently
been called a "rock star" - all style, no substance.


author: Hawke

subject:
Re: The dumbest ugliest conservative "women" in America are in Charlotte
 North Carolina tonight.

text:
On 9/5/2012 7:37 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Now that she's a nobody have you noticed how she's totally ignored now?
She had her fifteen minutes of fame and now it's over, and boy is it. It
used to be I couldn't keep from hearing either from her or about her all
the goddamn time. Now I never hear her name anymore. Which just goes to
show you how the republicans were using her as much as she was using
them. She was really hot stuff when she was helpful to the party. Now
that she's not she's like, out with the garbage. They don't exactly hold
people in high regard the minute they lose their utility to the party.
So now it's, we don't need you anymore Sarah, get the fuck out of here,
bitch! Now she knows what they mean by being on your own.

Hawke


author: Klaus Schadenfreude

text:
Thanks for not making a fool out of yourself trying to defend your
fellow liberals and their "complex minds."

[chuckle]


text:
[chuckle]

If you say so. Your theory doesn't play well on usenet.


text:
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:

That's simply not true.


text:
"Yes, let's cherry pick the data to make ourselves look as good as
possible."  - Ramon's Real Thoughts.

________
"People are SUPPOSED to hate ideas - It is called Freedom of Speech."
                             - Ramon F. Herrera, June 21, 2012


text:
False.

Libertarians and most conservatives would know to write "...higher
*than* average..." in the subject line as well.  "...higher that
average..." - that's why we don't want any more illegal border jumpers
in the country.


text:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT), "Robert Westergrom,1900
Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E" <[email]> wrote:

(VBG!!!)

    "The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq
around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their
40-year 'War on Poverty.' So far, fewer troops have been killed by
hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were
murdered in Washington, DC, last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to
262 murders in DC.)  Ann Coulter


text:
On 9/5/2012 9:40 AM, Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E wrote:

That is *exactly* right.  What the economically ignorant Democrats call
"investment" is anything *but* investment - it is pure consumption.  We
are not "investing" in anything by wasting money on lavish school
lunches for the children of deadbeats who (the deadbeats) are too
irresponsible and drunk to provide food for their children.


author: MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE

subject: Re: New York Times: Democrats are intellectually "exhausted". WRONG! MORALLY AND FATALLY COMPROMISED.

text:
meso-scalar
...
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405274870386010457550812...
to
to

LIBs believe they can FAKE reality
just as they've FAKED the character of the MAN, BRAND OBAMA.

LIBs would rather reign over then ruins
than rebuild from the rubble, because a
people without Hope are easier to control.

LIBs follow a leadership that is NOT JUST mistaken, but EVIL.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/160688.jpg
 ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½What do you mean WE paleface?

LIBs. What FARCE their FACEBOOK?
---
ZUCKERBERG, the modern day Francisco d'Anconia....

http://www.rocketpowered.co.uk/rocket-fuel/the-social-network-official-
trailer
    	  The $50 Billion Social Network

...it was never intended to make money.
    Had that been the prime motivator,
   it would never have grown like it did...

AN ALL LIB AMERICA WILL BE AS LIFELESS AND USELESS AS MARS.

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/26/fireworks_cnbcs_bartiromo_vs
_barney_frank_on_banks.html
    	CNBC: ATLAS SHRUGGED's PREQUEL, BARNEY FRANK VS MARIA BARTIROMO

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/31/how-did-atlas-shrugged-and-ayn-
rand-predict-america-spinning-out-control/
    	How Did Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'
    	Predict an America Spinning Out of Control?

How could she have painted villains who seem ripped from todayï¿½s
headlines?

Thereï¿½s Wesley Mouch, who in the face of failed government programs
screams like Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts for wider powers.

Thereï¿½s Eugene Lawson, ï¿½the banker with a heart,ï¿½ who like former Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is ever
ready with a bailout.

Thereï¿½s Mr. Thompson, who like President Obama seeks to rally the country
behind pious platitudes.

HOW DID ALL THIS HAPPEN?
A: GOOD MEN DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
   NOW THEY'VE BECOME MATERIAL ACCOMPLICES.


author: PaxPerPoten

text:
On 9/5/2012 2:32 PM, meso-scalar wrote:

And sadly very true as to how the Liberals think and act.


subject: New York Times:  Democrats are intellectually "exhausted"

text:
That's exactly right.

Read the opinion piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/party-of-strivers.html

Excerpt:

       If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are hitting a
       creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for [the
       Republican] argument. If you believe that there has been a
       hardening of the national arteries caused by a labyrinthine tax
       code, an unsustainable Medicare program and a suicidal addiction
       to deficits, then you appreciate this streamlining agenda, even
       if you donï¿½t buy into the whole Ayn Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.

       On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative,
       offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an
       exhausted Democratic Party, which says: We donï¿½t have an agenda,
       but we really donï¿½t like theirs. Given these options, the choice
       is pretty clear.

That's exactly it.  The Democrats don't have an agenda for economic and
spiritual renewal; just more of the same that got us to where we are.


author: Oglethorpe

subject: Re: The dumbest ugliest conservative "women" in America are in Charlotte North Carolina tonight.

text:
"Hawke" <[email]> wrote in message
news:k2benk$vvl$[email]...

You mean all those TV appearnce don't happen?


text:
On 9/5/2012 1:02 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:

Illiberal contemporary "liberals" are, in fact, neo-feudalists.  Just as
in feudalism, they see people only as embodying a role.  Under feudalism
there were royalty and the nobility, clerics, warriors and serfs.  The
nobility and the clerics presumed to direct the lives of the serfs, and
this was just how things were.  Today, the roles are still based on
social class.  Above all, to leftists, there's group identity:  race,
ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, and so on.  Leftists expect you to
play your role and not deviate from it.  Thus, to leftists, more than
being president, Obama is black.  Obama playing his role means everyone
else has to play theirs, cognizant of his.  That's how they translate
any opposition to Obama and his noxious policies as being due "only" to
racism, when in fact virtually *NONE* of it is due to racism.  But to
leftists, race matters, and it determines the roles they will "allow"
people to play.


author: deep

subject: Re: New York Times:  Democrats are intellectually "exhausted"

text:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:13:25 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

Um, you stupid fucking moron, it was deregulation and cutting taxes on
the wealthy that got us here you idiot.  Now all the Republicans can
suggest is more of the same.  It's the Democrats who want to invest in
education and infrastructure to stimulate job growth with a healthy
well trained work force.  That is something the Republicans refuse to
try.


text:
On 9/6/2012 7:56 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:

What TV appearances? Like the convention where she didn't get any
attention at all? I hardly ever see or hear about her anymore. I watch
TV so if she was getting on like she used to I would know it. She's just
not getting on these days. Can't say I miss her either. She's a dumbshit
that never should have been given the chance to be vice president. Now
there's a thought, just think if she and McCain had won, McCain had a
medical emergency, and she would have been running the country. It just
goes to show what lousy judgment McCain has. Good thing he lost. Too bad
Bush didn't. Obama wouldn't be still digging us out of this hole.

Hawke


author: Pelosi Ethics Institute

subject: Re: New York Times:  Democrats are intellectually "deprived"

text:
In article <[email]>
deep <[email]> wrote:

Oh?  Is that what happened to the billions that Nancy Pelosi and
Harry Reid steered into donor hands?  It must be very profitable
to regulate.

The well trained work force saw their jobs get up and walk out
of the country to India, thanks to the likes of IBM, HP, Cisco,
Bank of America, GAP, General Motors, Google, Intel, Citigroup,
Whirlpool, Cummins, American Express, U.S. Bank, General
Electric, Xerox, Apple ...

So what you're saying is Democrats regulate and destroy,
Republicans deregulate and rebuild?

I just want to make sure I have that straight.


author: Peter Mormon

text:
In article <[email]>
deep <[email]> wrote:

You're a flat out liar.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/teac-m23.shtml

More than 20,000 California teachers receive preliminary layoff
notices
By Rafael Azul
23 March 2012
On March 15, California schools handed out 20,000 layoff notices
to teachers, librarians and other employees in school districts
across the state. California schools are required by state law
to notify those teachers who may be sacked by mid-March based on
anticipated income and school enrollment. Whether or not those
teachers are actually laid off is based on actual revenues.
Meanwhile, school districts are anticipating and preparing for
another round of mid-year budget cuts.

Barring voter approval of higher sales and income taxes this
November, public schools (from kindergarten through the 12th
grade) will face budget cuts of U$4.8 billion, more than half
the $9.2 billion in projected cuts that would affect virtually
every state program, including programs originally earmarked by
former Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that had been
rejected by the legislature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-
to-oversee
-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the
savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a
new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies
that are
the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress,
to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the
companies. It
would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it
would
determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of
their
ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that
oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more
than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie
Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for
housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the
tools,
nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size,
complexity
and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John
W. Snow
told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with
Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.


text:
On 9/5/2012 9:32 AM, deep wrote:

No, it was not.  It is Democrats' policies that:

- stifle innovation
- belittle and denigrate entrepreneurial effort ("you didn't build that!")
- encourage parasitism (number of Americans on food stamps increased
   from 32 million to 47 million since February 2009)
- hobble American business with jobs-killing environmental and social
regulations
- artificially raise costs of virtually all inputs
- cripple businesses with frivolous lawsuits

It is the Democrats that got us here - not in any doubt at all.


text:
On 9/5/2012 10:32 AM, deep wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703860104575508122499819564-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html

The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to
more than $1.75 trillion in 2008, a 3% real increase over five years, to
about 14% of U.S. national income. This cost is in addition to the
federal tax burden of 21%, for a combined cost of 35% of national
income. One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay
for or comply with federal laws and regulations, and new policies
enacted in 2010 for health care and financial services will increase
this burden.


author: Barry Bruyea

text:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:53:04 +0200, "Pelosi Ethics Institute"
<[email]> wrote:

It was the democrats that decided that if you rent a trailer, you can
own a house.


text:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:51:52 -0600, meso-scalar <[email]> wrote:

Obviously capitalists can't be trusted to operate businesses without
strict and extensive regulation.  For society it is simply the cost of
doing business in a capitalist economy.


text:
On 9/5/2012 9:51 AM, meso-scalar wrote:

The vast majority of regulation simply destroys value.  The rest is
comprised of transfers to regulators and those who navigate the
regulatory regime:  lawyers, CPAs, "consultants."


text:
On 9/5/2012 9:56 AM, deep wrote:

That's wrong.  Regulation makes all businesses do worse and results in
less output at higher prices to consumers.


text:
On 9/5/2012 10:56 AM, deep wrote:

Um yeah...that's why all that "extensive regulation" has made the US
Postal Service such a great success and profit maker, lol!

I bet UPS and Fedex are ready to throw in the towel real soon...

You have a marxism problem.


text:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:24:20 -0600, meso-scalar <[email]> wrote:

Is that the best example you can come up with?

Nope.  WE have a capitalist problem.  If you don't regulate business
you will have rat parts and feces in your food products.  Read Upton
Sinclair's The Jungle if you want to know what our meat industry was
like before regulation.


subject: Re: New York Times:  Democrats are intellectually "deficient"

text:
In article <[email]>
deep <[email]> wrote:

How about Bill Clinton's non-existent WMD war that started all
this fiscal hemorrhaging?

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles
to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose
is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters
a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue
state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against
us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has
ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by
Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons
of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in
the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons
of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has
ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building
weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue
for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked
on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological
warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam
Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have
nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should
remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery
capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear
weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of
mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is
miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and
his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the
threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


text:
Amtrak is better.

                            [crickets.wav]

I hear that's on the menu today on the Coast Starlight.


text:
On 9/5/2012 11:40 AM, deep wrote:

Lol, it's a spectacular profit-making success, isn't it, sort of like
say...AMTRAK????

Gee, your thesis is that America returns straight back to the 1930s if
we make some sensible alterations to _over_ regulation?

Grow a brain.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay
for or comply with federal laws and regulations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


text:
On 9/5/2012 10:40 AM, deep wrote:

Ha ha ha!  Scheisskopf admits defeat.

No, we do not.  Capitalism - that is, private enterprise - is what
generates value.  What we have is a Democrat corruption problem.


text:
On 9/5/2012 11:11 AM, meso-scalar wrote:

Leftists don't understand - or maybe they do, and cynically get rich off
it - that regulatory agencies are virtually always "captured" by the
regulated entities.

No regulation has ever eliminated a so-called "problem" without creating
myriad other real problems, quite often with a worse impact than the
original so-called "problem."


text:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:11:50 -0600, meso-scalar <[email]> wrote:

Did you know Congress is force the USPS to pay 5 billion back into the
budget?  The PS would be self supporting except Congress is attempting
to milk it like a cow.

Question is, what's sensible?  Do we believe the people making
billions at the public's expense that our environmental regulations
need to be degraded to "sensible"?

You're one to talk when you piss and moan and whine about
overreguation but you don't have a clue as to what any of that means
or entails.  You're just another clueless bitching right winger
without enough sense to even understand the issues.


text:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:41:43 -0700, George Plimpton <[email]>
wrote:

You have an intelligence problem.


text:
You're lying again.

Here is what is REALLY happening.

Today the U.S. Postal Service will fail to make a $5.5 billion
Congressionally mandated payment to cover health care costs for future
retirees.

So tell me.

Do you just hear the words "Postal Service" and "$5 billion" and then
make shit up to join the two together?

Or are you too stupid to understand what " $5.5 billion
Congressionally mandated payment to cover health care costs for future
retirees." actually means?

http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's FORTRESS OF LIES
Now With Over 200 Documented
Lies, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Distortions, and Deceptions!


text:
On 9/5/2012 1:21 PM, deep wrote:

Why the nerve of them!

Compelling the USPS to FUND it's own retirement program...

By FORCING them to have a solvent retirement plan, for sham!

Could you try and translate that to comprehensible English please?

Oh I think I have a great idea what it means, and 33% of our economic
output is far too much to donate to "regulations".


text:
On 9/5/2012 12:21 PM, deep wrote:

No, the USPS would *NOT* be self supporting.

No one is making any money at the "public's expense."  Firms make money
because people perceive value in what they sell, so they buy it.


text:
On 9/5/2012 11:45 AM, deep wrote:

You lost the debate.

----------------------------------------------------------------
"One out of every three dollars earned in the U.S. goes to pay
for or comply with federal laws and regulations"
----------------------------------------------------------------


text:
On 9/5/2012 10:45 AM, deep wrote:

I don't.  I'm far more intelligent than you could even dream of being.
If I had a length of iron rebar shoved through my brain, I'd still be
more intelligent than you.  You are extremely unintelligent, which
largely explains why you're so stupid.  I don't know what explains why
you hold such noxious, anti-American values - that has nothing to do
with intelligence.


text:
On 9/5/2012 5:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

Wow, the guy is truly a piece of work, nice website.


text:
On 9/5/2012 11:14 AM, meso-scalar wrote:

He never was a contestant - didn't have the ability.


text:
Look for it to be referenced extensively when Dudu finally goes on a
shooting rampage.


author: RD Sandman

text:
Klaus Schadenfreude <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

the
attempting
future
future

Particularly if he is using an AR-15 or a 1911.

--

If you see a bomb technician running....
Do try to keep up with him.

Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)


text:
On 9/5/2012 6:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

OMG, that will not be a good day for anyone here...


author: Alec Fraser

text:
"meso-scalar"  wrote in message news:k28sp1$28p$[email]...

On 9/5/2012 6:13 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

OMG, that will not be a good day for anyone here...

On the contrary.  MANY of us here (if not most)  have guns and ammo.
Legally!  :)

DooDoo? Well, he only "claims" to  own some... after all, He posted
"pictures" of them from web sites!"  :/

Oh... and "DuDu"  IS a Girls name!  :)


author: Igor Meyer

subject: Every 6 seconds a child dies from malnutrition or hunger!

text:
Now there is an alternative way of helping - where the ones who really need
it most actually receive all the help!

Go to http://www.igormeyer.com/helpme1/

Please help.

Igor Meyer.

-Sorry if you feel that this message doesn't belong to this newsgroup, but
this is so important!


author: Ron Peterson

subject: Re: Every 6 seconds a child dies from malnutrition or hunger!

text:
Igor Meyer <[email]> wrote:

This is spam trying to market expensive rice and lentil meals.

	Ron


text:
No, Ron.
This is not spam trying to market expensive rice and lentil meals.
This is a concerned guy in Norway who has discovered a fantastic way to help
save dying children, and I feel I am doing something that really makes a
difference.
Instead of giving money to a charity, which may be used for administrative
costs, I ask you to give food to the children, which will be delivered by
leading humanitarian organizations.
Developed by food scientists and nutritionists, the VitaMeals donated by you
are highly nutritious. They contain 25 essential vitamins and minerals.
You call the food "expensive". USD 29.95 to feed a child every day for a
month. Is that too much for you?

PLEASE check this out more carefully!

Sincerely,
Igor Meyer

PS.
I have often wanted to ask God how He can let all unjustice happen in the
World. But I haven't. I'm afraid He will ask me the same question...

"Ron Peterson" <[email]> skrev i melding
news:3da1b053$0$1426$[email]...
need
but


author: RaDicaL RaNi

text:
"Igor Meyer" <[email]> wrote in message news:<01mo9.2231$[email]>...

i've always felt the same about hungry people- always felt that one
day, i gotta go out and help them, b'cos i know that i'm capable of
that.
  Ron, this is a guy that isn't just sitting there and feeling sorry
for the hungry, this is a guy that has decided that he wants to do
something about it. he's only trying to help. it's not spam.

      RaDical RaNi


text:
Thanks for your moral support, RaDicaL RaNi! Do you want to support the
children as well?

Igor.

"RaDicaL RaNi" <[email]> skrev i melding
news:[email]...
news:<01mo9.2231$[email]>...
help
administrative
by
you
the
really
newsgroup,