author: Lloyd R. Parker

text:
Mike Scirocco ([email]) wrote:
:
:
: Blazing Tattles Magazine wrote:
: >
: > Lindzen seems to feel slighted by his failure to find a publisher or
: > respect for a paper he wrote about greenhouse gasses and global
: > warming, saturated with illogical argument and short on information
: > other than what one can find in a middle school earth science
: > textbook.
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
: http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/04/23/magazine/watch23.htm
:
: Lindzen notes that the future rate of temperature rise is very
: much in doubt. For that matter, the temperature record is not
: absolutely clear.

Most scientists believe we know enough to act now.

:
: Surface readings have shown significant warming, especially in the
: last 10 years, but satellite data provide a somewhat different
: picture. Using microwave profiles of the bottom five miles of the
: atmosphere, Christy and NASA's Roy Spencer have compiled a record
: showing only a tiny increase in global temperature since 1979.
: Warming in the Northern Hemisphere has been counterbalanced by
: cooling in the Southern Hemisphere.

Actually, when corrected for satellite drift and other changes, the
satellite record agrees much better with surface measurements.  Of course,
we live at the surface anyway, so measurements here are more useful.

: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
:
: Please provide a url to the paper you're describing. He sounds
: smart enough to me.


subject: Re: Check Out Marijuana Policy Project - Texans Beware!

text:
On Jun 30, 10:06 pm, JP <[email]> wrote:

How much of a penalty for being in the same room as a minor while
possessing the deadlier and more addictive drug alcohol?


author: Christopher Helms

text:
On Jul 1, 3:23 pm, M_P <[email]> wrote:

None. Unless it's moonshine, the state is getting a piece of the
action on the booze so there is little concern about who is in the
room with it or who is getting loaded on it. It's not about raising
revenues for greedy legislators. It's about The Children. It's always
about The Children, isn't it?


text:
On Jul 1, 3:41 pm, Christopher Helms <[email]> wrote:

The state could have a piece of the action on the pot, too. (And on
legalized prostitution, which they should also do.)


text:
M_P wrote:

Welcome to the America whose Supreme Court decides 5-4 *not* to let
those convicted of horrible crimes use DNA evidence to vindicate them.
The USA has the highest inmate population known. Nothing wrong here,
nope! Especially in Texas. ;-) !

M


subject: Re: Check Out USA goes USSR Policy Project - Texans Beware!

text:
Supreme Court Finds Convicts Have No Right to Test DNA

The Supreme Court said Thursday that convicts have no constitutional
right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long
after they were found guilty. The court ruled 5-4 against an Alaska man
who was convicted in a brutal attack on a prostitute 16 years ago.
Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal discusses the impact of the
District Attorney's Office v. Osborne decision.


author: JP

text:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Helms
<[email]> wrote:

The children in Austin that is...


author: Michael Jackson was Born Black, Dyed White

text:
*M\ï¿½/M* wrote:
   People warehousing is a huge business.
   Got to keep the loonies off the grass.


author: Master Betty

text:
""*M\\ï¿½/M* "" <TruthVsH88@U~noIntegrity.net> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Pot is all but legal in Austin.


author: B Sellers

text:
Master Betty wrote:
	So it is still illegal in Austin?

	Is sodomy legal between consenting adults in the privacy
of their own homes?

	How about the rest of Texas?

	<http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/63>

	Will tell you about more than half of Federal prisoners
being locked up for drug offenses.

	No complacence until I am dead.

	later
	bliss


author: Dr John Watson

text:
Noticed at Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:41:49 -0500: Master Betty informed us:

You mean pot is illegal in Austin.

Is it ignored, as is done in the Netherlands?


text:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:41:49 -0500, "Master Betty" <[email]>
wrote:

Better ask someone who knows from experience...now days it requires a
year of probation, drug and alcohol classes, suspended driver's
license, couple of grand of fines, court costs, probation
fees...that's for a joint or two - at least that's the standard around
where I live...and no, I haven't been busted..


text:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:22:36 -0700, B Sellers <[email]> wrote:

Well, in Texas, you are likely to spend $4k or so with a lawyer. In
2007 there were 1,841,182 drug arrests. That's 7.4 billion dollars
plus what the prison systems bring in...wanna know why it's illegal?


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

I'd never recommend it but it's pretty relaxed in Travis County....you
know...Willie country


text:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:58:51 -0500, "Master Betty" <[email]>
wrote:

Just stay out of Williamson county...that's the beaver shot...


author: Déjà Fu

subject: Re: On The Cuff

text:
stumper wrote:

Can you imagine being surrounded by you?
Ick!!!

"You who choose
to lead must follow
But if
you fall,
you fall alone

If you should stand,
then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way,
I would take you home..."

(and thanks to Mssr. Rodent Toenails
for the reminder...)


author: Uncle Weasel

subject: Re: On The Cuff

text:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:49:56 -0400, Dï¿½jï¿½_Fu wrote
(in message <[email]>):

Your taxonomy sucks, but you're welcome.

   ---Uncle Weasel


subject: Re: On The Cuff

text:
Uncle Weasel wrote:

Fuck you, you squirrel-faced baboon -
my taxonomy is perfect :)

Speaking of which, have you kept in
touch with The Round One?


subject: Re: On The Cuff

text:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:25:16 -0400, Dï¿½jï¿½_Fu wrote
(in message <[email]>):

Keep thinking I ought to call him. He keeps thinking he ought to answer the
phone.

   ---Uncle Weasel


author: Edmond Wollmann

subject: Re: Molehill>Mountain>Avalanche

text:
"Thor Vikingface" posting from Altopia.net aka [email] forging
addresses as <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

here
more
are

Vitasphere.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA

I assume GRANT LEWI (uh, the one who wrote it!?) meant horoscope.

I notice spinics have difficulty reading more than 2 or 3 lines. Must be
from their heavy reading of the sunday comics.
The person who wrote that is listed below, just like it was in the first
post.

"Astrology For The Millions" Grant Lewi, Doubleday, Doran & Co.
1940 to 1980 Bantam and Llewellyn publishing houses

"He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
changing anything but his own disposition, will waste his life in fruitless
efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
Webster


author: Thor Vikingface

subject: Re: Molehill>Mountain>Avalanche

text:
Edmond Heinz Wollmann, dumpster-diving deadbeat, bankruptcy-filing kook,
failed predictor, plagiarist, thief, asshole, Usenet spammer, 20-time
Net and ISP account loser, physical stalker, unlicensed fraudulent
"counselor" who has sex with his "clients", borrows money from them,
then publicly discloses their private communications after they call him
on his lack of ethics, illegally operating an astrology business in San
Diego,  convicted in San Diego  on 6/28/98 of a misdemeanor (PC 555-
Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, sued in San Diego  for
Unlawful Detainer and evicted in 3/96, past violator of Federal and
State game laws for abusing wildlife, described, punished, and banned
from University servers as an abuser by SDSU, and remorseless confessed
killer of another human being wrote:

Yup.

Nope.

Not even, dipshit.

Sorry, asshole, but in order for it to be a forged address, someone else
would have to own it:

But nobody does.

Here's the WHOIS check:

Your selection is available for registration.

If you would like to register this Web Address(domain name), click
Register Now below.

                          wieldingberserker.org

Go ahead and register it, doofus. Be my guest.

But then, according to you, PF Chang's is "forging" their own restaurant name.

Man, you're such a fucking dumbass.

 wrote in message

You *assume*? So, you're qpoting shit, and you don't even *know* what it means?

Of your under-educated, obtuse, incoherent kookspeak, yes!

< Must be

The Sunday comics boast better grammar, punctuation, and style than a 46
year old High School dropout named Ed Wollmann. Now that's sad.

We don't give a fuck. YOU repeated it, kook, without knowing what it meant.


author: Trippy

subject: Re: Molehill>Mountain>Avalanche

text:
"Edmond Wollmann" <[email]> wrote in message
news:erAo6.106719$[email]...

If you haven't read it, why should I?

Vitasphere.

BWAAAAAAAAA !!!!!

Vitasphere....... try some today!!
Vitasphere......kills bugs dead!!

Oh, you created this reality.

I'm a spinic now??  Yaaaaaaaaaaay Me !!!!!

"Sum up the extent of your education at SDSU"
"Well, I can't post from there, and uh....uh....VITASPHERE !!"


author: Cujo

subject: Re: Molehill>Mountain>Avalanche

text:
"Edmond Wollmann" <[email]> wrote in message
news:erAo6.106719$[email]...

It's not forging, you st00pid fuck.

Vitasphere.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA

You mean you rip off or otherwise quote stuff without knowing what it means?
That's pretty fucking stupid and proves your arguments are nothing more than
babble when challenged.

I learned proper grammar from the Sunday funnies. That's a hell of a lot
more than you did, comma abuser.

Lame evasion and confessed plagiarism noted, you asshole. Next time quote
your sources the first time, fraud.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Molehill>Mountain>Avalanche

text:
In article <erAo6.106719$[email]>,
Edmond Wollmann <[email]> wrote:

Translation: Edie admits plagiarism!


author: rossum

subject: The Design Detector - a Modern Fable

text:
The Design Detector - a Modern Fable

"Eureka!" Professor Cavor shouted as he assembled the final parts of
his device.  "I am sure of a knighthood from Her Majesty Queen
Victoria for this."  He smiled to himself in anticipation of the
honours that would be showered upon him.  "Archibald!  Come here at
once."

The Professor's young assistant came running into the laboratory.
"You called, sir," he panted, for he was still out of breath from his
dash from the other side of the house.  He had been in the kitchen,
wheedling one of cook's excellent pies from the scullery maid.
Indeed, he was still clutching the pie in his hand when he arrived.

"Capital," the Professor said, siezing the pie from his assistant's
hand, "this will do nicely."  He placed the pie on a small stand in
front of his invention.  "Observe closely, Archibald.  You are about
to witness history in the making."

Archibald oberved the device closely:
(http://www.slipperybrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/steampunk-camera-thumb-450x443-30308.jpg)
It looked like nothing he had ever seen before.  "What is it
Professor?"

The Professor checked that the device was pointed exactly at the pie
and pressed the lever at the side.  A green light illuminated on the
top.

"Goodness!" the young assistant cried.  "It uses electricity!"

"Indeed it does," the Professor confirmed.  "It is a most advanced
device, using all the latest techniques at the cutting edge of
science."

"But what does it do?  Apart from shine a green light?"

"It is," the Professor paused for effect, "my Paleyan Design
Detector."

"That sounds very important, Professor."

"It is.  It has just detected that cook's pie was designed."  Reminded
of the pie's existence, Archibald was just in time to see the Profesor
pick it up and start eating it, with great relish.  "Mmmm, I must
remember to complement cook on her pies."

"Have you tested your detector?" the young man asked the Professor.
"Did you not say that a scientist should test everything?"

"Indeed I did, and that is what I am about to do.  Do you have your
pocket watch with you?"

"Yes, Professor.  But why?"

"Follow me, young man, and you will learn something."  As they left
the laboratory, heading for the lawn surroounding the Professor's
house, the savant asked his young pupil, "Have you read Paley's
'Natural Theology'?"

"No, sir.  I'm afraid I have not."

"Well, in that excellent book, he uses the analogy of a watch lying on
a heath.  We shall recreate the analogy with your watch on my lawn."

And so it proved to be.  The watch was duly laid on the grass, the
detector pointed, the lever operated and the green light illuminated.
"Excellent," the Professor cried.  The pie and the watch are both
designed.  Now let us expand the boundaries of science!"

"How will we do that?" his puzzled asistant asked.

"Observe," the Professor told him.  He pointed the detector not at the
watch, but at the grass.  Again he operated the lever and again the
green light shone.  "See!" the Professor shouted in triumph.  "A
magnificent validation of Paley!"

"I'm afraid I don't see," Archibald replied.  For he was indeed
puzzled by the Professor's reaction.

Patiently, the Professor explained.  "The pie and the watch were both
designed by humans.  By cook and by the watchmaker respectively.
Detecting design in them was no surprise at all.  However, the grass
is a different matter.  No human designed that grass, it was designed
by a far greater artificer than mere humans."

"You mean...?"

"Yes, Archibald.  This is definite scientific proof that Paley was
right and that the world was indeed made by the hand of the Almighty."

"My goodness, Professor.  That is a magnificent discovery."

"I like to think so," the Professor replied with a becoming modesty.

"Look, Professor, a magpie.  Perhaps we should try it on an animal as
well?"

"Indeed we should."  Swiftly the Professor pointed the Detector at the
bird and again it registered design.

"We have tried animal and vegetable, how about the mineral world?"
Archibald suggested.

"You are beginning to think like a scientist, Archibald.  Well done."
The Professor pointed the Detector at some rocks by the side of the
garden.  Again, design was registered.  "What of the heavens?" the
Professor mused.  The Detector might be damaged by the direct rays of
the Sun, but there was the Moon showing its crescent towards the East,
so he chose that as his target.  "Truly, the heavens show His
handiwork," remarked the Professor as the Detector indicated that the
Moon in the heavens was also designed.

Just then, Archibald had a worrying thought.  Perhaps he might have
kept it to himself, but he still remembered that pie.  He voiced his
thought aloud.  "Professor.  You told me that we must thoroughly test
everything, did you not."

"Indeed I did.  That is what we are currently doing in this garden,
testing my Design Detector."

"Of course, Professor.  But so far all we have tested it on are things
that were designed: the pie, the watch, the grass, the magpie, the
rock and the Moon.  All designed.  Should we not also test the device
on something that is not designed, so we can be sure it is operating
correctly?"

The Professor was stunned.  The boy was right.  Why had he not thought
of this himself?  Immediately he began trying to think of something
that was [i]not[/i] designed, so he could properly test his Design
Detector.

While the Professor was lost in thought, Archibald made his way back
to the kitchen to try for another pie.

rossum


author: Steven L.

subject: Re: The Design Detector - a Modern Fable

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

Nice crafted story.

But utterly useless as an argument--except maybe against Ray Martinez.
It's a strawman.

The ID proponents don't claim that rocks and minerals and the Moon were
designed.  They don't even rule out some forms of naturalistic evolution
of biological life.  They just claim that evolution can't account for
all of the life in the natural world.  Dembski's own "design inference"
would tell you that minerals and the Moon's cratered appearance weren't
designed.

Your story is a long example of a strawman:  Attribute something to ID
proponents that they never claimed and then knock it down.

Don't caricature those whom you're attempting to critique.  Take their
arguments *as they state them* and then criticize those.

In short, act like a scientist, not like a political activist.

-- Steven L.


author: Bob Casanova

text:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:11:11 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by rossum <[email]>:

Excellent; thanks!

Quite a quandary for the poor Prof. When can we expect
Chapter 2? ;-)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless


author: chris thompson

text:
On Dec 29, 6:11ï¿½pm, rossum <[email]> wrote:

snip

Having made more than a few turkey, beef, chicken and pork pies, I
have to ask:

The arrangements of meat, potatoes, carrots, and sauce- is that
designed? Is it IC- or design- or just chaos?

Chris


author: Nick Keighley

text:
On Jan 1, 12:39ï¿½pm, "Steven L." <[email]> wrote:

<snip>

ID isn't as coherent as that. I've known people to claim galaxies look
designed.

I've found out it real hard to pin some of 'em down on this.


author: Frank J

text:
On Jan 1, 7:39ï¿½am, "Steven L." <[email]> wrote:

But they don't claim that they're not designed either.

True, but there too, they stop short of claiming that they're not
designed. They simply try to have it both ways. Sometimes design and
"naturalistic evolution" are mutually exclusive, and sometimes they're
not, such as when they claim that ID "subsumes" evolution and "can
accommodate all the results of 'Darwinism."

The other issue is the "Chapter 2" I was naively expecting to see
after first reading about the DI's design argument in 1997, but have
not seen yet, and don't expect to ever see. That is, if something was
designed, was it designed using raw material that was itself designed,
or from raw material that was not designed, or some of both? E.g. Behe
wrote at length of the "designed" flagellum, but I don't recall him
saying whether it was assembled from non-designed biological systems
(secretory systems?). Now it may be that he briefly speculated about
it, as he did with his "designed ancestral cell," and I just missed
it. But I would expect that to be a centerpiece of his argument,
especially because (1) he admits common descent, unlike many (most?)
of his fans, and (2) there are so many "kinds" of flagella around (&
undoubtedly countless more extinct).

The problem is that they state them so vaguely that it's almost
impossible to criticize it without asking them all sorts of questions,
not the least of which is to unequivocally define the terms they use,
often in apparently multiple meanings.


author: TomS

text:
"On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 12:39:21 +0000, in article
<[email]>, Steven L. stated..."

I wonder why so many astronomers get upset about astrology.

After all, is isn't as if the astrologers are advocating geocentrism
or denying any of the findings of astrophysics or cosmology.

--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)


text:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 12:39:21 +0000, "Steven L."
<[email]> wrote:

Please notice that the Professor has designed a *Paleyan* Design
Detector, and Paley was a theologian, so Paley, for one, sees the
entire universe as designed by God.  It is perfectly legitimate for a
Paleyan Design Detector to detect God's design in a rock or the Moon.
Indeed any Christian, Jew or Moslem has to follow Paley and see the
entire universe as designed by God.

However, for general ID, the problem is that some of their proposed
methods of detecting design do show that rocks, minerals and the Moon
were designed.  What are the properties of the proposed ID designer
that tell you that the designer *could not* have designed a rock?  We
know that humans can design rocks, a sculptor does exactly that.  Is
the ID designer completely incapable of doing something that a human
can do?

Is the ID designer space aliens?  Surely such space aliens are capable
of designing rocks.

We cannot rule out designed rocks, so we have to subject rocks to the
same test for the presence of design as we subject other objects.  As
the Professor says, to fail to test our detector would not be
scientific.  To say, "I know this rock isn't designed because I
haven't tested it," does not make scientific sense.  You only know a
rock isn't designed because you *have* tested it and found that design
was not present.

I posted a previous piece here on this problem, my "Proposal for a
Theistic Design Detector":
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_09.html

rossum


author: Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc

text:
On Jan 1, 12:39ï¿½pm, "Steven L." <[email]> wrote:

"Modern" and "canonical" "Intelligent Design" doctrine is as you
describe.  But at the same time, it is clearly just Creation Science
renamed by search-and-replace of the key terms, literally.

And other apologist arguments in terms of design appear besides
"Intelligent Design".  With Google it's fairly easy to find an
argument resting on science terms that the Moon didn't just appear,
God made it with great care:
<http://www.reasons.org/design/earthmoon-design/big-collision-
beautiful-moon>

It's a pretty lousy argument, but it's there.

Finding that the face of the Moon was crafted in detail by God is a
bit harder, and less sciency, but see here:
<http://theheavensdeclare.net/?p=28>
<http://www.authonomy.com/books/37116/god-nature-cosmos-and-love/read-
book/?chapterid=353140>

And it's axiomatic that rocks and minerals were created by God for
human benefit.

Did I overlook a feature of the story that points to "Intelligent
Design" specifically?


text:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:38:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email]>
wrote:

Chapter Two has already been written and published.  The further
adventures of Professor Cavor are well known.  He had to put aside his
Design Detector and decided to work on something else.  There is a
clue in the story.

rossum


author: ed wolf

text:
Am Freitag, 30. Dezember 2011 02:10:29 UTC+1 schrieb chris thompson:

Guided Evolution. There is, of course, no chaos in design,
no leaf of cilantro falls if not through the hand
of the chef.
As long as it is pork-pie it is of the pork-pie
kind  and minor differences mean nothing.
ed wolf


author: rmj

text:
On 12/29/2011 5:10 PM, chris thompson wrote:

Depends on the chef.


text:
"On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 14:05:17 -0800 (PST), in article
<[email]>, Nick
Keighley stated..."

I don't know whether they would count the union of three quarks (which
cannot exist independently) in a proton or neutron as being "irreducibly
complex".

Or on much else.

How does one act like a scientist in a political debate?

I suggest that there is a down side to that, which is that it gives
the impression that a political issue is scientific.

--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)


text:
On Jan 1, 9:35ï¿½am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
[email]" <[email]> wrote:

There's also a lot of "delete," - of the testable "what happened when"
claims of the mutually contradictory Creation "Science" "theories."


text:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:57:47 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by rossum <[email]>:

Aha! I didn't realize this was intended as an unpublished
prequel.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless


text:
On Dec 30, 11:45ï¿½am, ed wolf <[email]> wrote:

I think one time I proposed here that if I throw salt over my shoulder
for luck, the outcome isn't designed.  This turns out to be a
controversial opinion, to intelligent designists.


text:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:45:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ed wolf
<[email]>:

Well, I'll have to eat my hat!
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless


text:
On Jan 1, 11:52ï¿½pm, TomS <[email]> wrote:

mesons only have two quarks


text:
On Jan 1, 6:52ï¿½pm, TomS <[email]> wrote:

That's essentially the same Catch-22 of whether to participate in an
evolution vs.ID/creationism or not. As you know, the former risks
giving ID/creationism legitimacy, the latter risks being perceived as
being unable to meet the "challenge."

Steven made a similar point on the "why students should critically
analyze evolution" thread. He objected to my "b" option, which I'll
grant may have been unfairly worded, but proposed a "b '" option which
allowed evolution-deniers to use their ambiguous wording. That would
be OK if most people either thought to ask to clarify b' or recognized
it as a sign of evasion. But most people, inlcuding many (most?) who
accept evolution, either don't think of doing that, or don't consider
it important.

There is no easy answer. We have to balance trusting the audience's
judgment with helping them understand better. The "scientist" lays out
all the information, however inconvenient some of it may be, while the
"politician" selects only that which helps his case, and conceals the
rest, along with back-up rebuttals (equally selective) in case anyone
brings them up. Sometimes just being quiet and letting the science-
deniers do all the talking gives them "enough rope to hang
themselves."

Frustratingly, we have allowed anti-evolution activists to convince as
much as 75% of the public - many of whom have no problem with
evolution - that the "Darwin only crowd" is playing "politician" with
education while the "dissenters" are the "open minded" "scientists."
In truth the situation is the exact opposite.


text:
On Jan 1, 5:18ï¿½am, "Mike Painter" <[email]> wrote:

Those in the know detect a reference to the comic noï¿½vel (I haven't
read the whole thing) of 1901, _The First Men in the Moon_.


author: Kleuskes & Moos

text:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:27:05 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:

How does one publish an unpublished prequel?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 _____________________________________
/ YOW!! Now I understand advanced     \
| MICROBIOLOGY and th' new TAX REFORM |
\ laws!!                              /
 -------------------------------------
  \
   \
       ___
     {~._.~}
      ( Y )
     ()~*~()
     (_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


text:
31. Dezember 2011  Robert Carnegie:

If you do it it might be called random.
I was only trying to apply logic to the concept of an
all knowing, all powerful designer/ chef: can such
designer stir a stew so good he doesn't know where the
carrots are? Designists of varying intelligence are
invited to enlighten us here.
regads and a happy new year
ed


text:
On Dec 30, 1:36ï¿½pm, Bob Casanova <[email]> wrote:

Beck off, dude! Goodbye!

Chris


author: John S. Wilkins

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

I not only have read it, I read it in a 1924 edition and when I was 8...
I so wanted some Cavorite, not to travel to the moon, but to hover over
earth.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre


text:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:59:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kleuskes & Moos
<[email]>:

The same way one publishes an unpublished novel: By
publishing it. It's publishing a *published* prequel (or
novel) that runs into problems, legal and otherwise.

Sheeesh...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
                          - McNameless


text:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:59:49 +0000 (UTC), Kleuskes & Moos
<[email]> wrote:

Well, speaking for myself, I started (or possibly finished) with a
faster than light neutrino.

rossum


text:
Kleuskes & Moos <[email]> wrote:

Previously.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre


author: Sparky @zig-zag.net

subject: HEY LUDDITES, Listen Up!!! ZAP Hydrogen-Electric Hybrid Drive Train CAR That Is Now Available To Qualified Buyers.

text:
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=101298

New ZAPCARS(TM) on Display Nov. 19-27 at the San Francisco Int'l Auto
Show

SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 11/15/2005 -- Automotive Pioneer
ZAP (PCX: ZP) of Santa Rosa, California, announced today the first
public showing of its latest vehicles, including the WORLDCAR,
OBVIO!, XEBRA and Smart Car, at the 47th Annual San Francisco
International Auto Show, November 19-27 at The Moscone Center (Booth
#1030).

With the idea of saving gas on everyone's mind these days, ZAP plans to
unveil its new XEBRA, one of the world's only production
all-electric cars. U.S. consumers will have the first chance to order
this unique four-passenger vehicle for under $10,000 as ZAP sets up
distribution in the United States through its authorized dealers.

ZAP is also unveiling two new prototype "trybrid" automobiles through a
partnership with Brazilian automaker OBVIO! Automotoveiculos S.P.E.
Ltda., of Rio de Janeiro. ZAP is the exclusive North American
distributor for the OBVIO! "trybrids," which have the ability to run on
gas, electricity or alcohol. ZAP plans to make OBVIO! available to
consumers through its dealer network by 2007.

ZAP will also showcase the WORLDCAR, one of the only commercially
available hydrogen-powered automobiles. Through ZAP's joint venture
with Anuvu of Sacramento, California, the WORLDCAR utilizes a
hydrogen-electric hybrid drive train that is now available to qualified
buyers.

Auto Show visitors are encouraged to stop by ZAP's booth #1030 where
the Company will be hosting an electric scooter zone with free rides
for the whole family. Full specifications about ZAP vehicles are
available on its Website http://www.zapworld.com.

About ZAP

ZAP, Zero Air Pollution®, has been a leader in advanced transportation
technologies since 1994, delivering over 90,000 vehicles to consumers
in more than 75 countries. ZAP has a 10-year license with eight and a
half years remaining on the technology developed by Smart-Automobile
LLC to Americanize the popular European-made Smart Car for the U.S.
marketplace. ZAP "Americanizes" the Smart Car to meet U.S. federal and
state safety and emissions standards through registered importers. ZAP
currently complies with regulatory requirements in all states except
California and four other states. ZAP is not affiliated with, or
authorized by, smart gmbh, the manufacturer of Smart automobiles, or
the smartUSA division of Mercedes-Benz LLC, the exclusive authorized
U.S. importer and distributor of those vehicles. ZAP purchases its
vehicles from non-affiliated direct importer Smart-Automobile LLC. For
more information, visit http://www.zapworld.com.


author: Shimmy Shammy

subject: Re: HEY LUDDITES, Listen Up!!! ZAP Hydrogen-Electric Hybrid Drive Train CAR That Is Now Available To Qualified Buyers.

text:
Doesn't seem like it would stop traffic jams or excessive paving. So it
potentially isn't quites as toxic.  Big deal, cars still suck.


author: James Rapier @UselessBastard.net

text: When the title calls "HEY LUDDITE" you come, like Pavlov's dog.


text:
Pavlov's dogs were tortured by idiocy but, in any case, there is no
shame in being a luddite.


author: Psalm 110

text:
Shimmy Shammy wrote:

If I found myself on the same ideological side with Luddite Don
Lancaster on any subject I would melt from embarrassment.


author: expires

subject: Mike NoodlesRyder, you don't impress me, perhaps never will

text:
Mike NoodlesRyder, you won't make a
noteworthy impression on me before
you stop trying to do so :)
naturally you would have to take
the risk of making no noteworthy
impression after giving up trying.
--expires


author: mr bill

subject: Re: Mike NoodlesRyder, you don't impress me, perhaps never will

text:
On Apr 5, 7:45 am, expires <[email]>
wrote:

rotflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

do you really believe that mike gives a flying fuck about your opinion
of him?
who cares if an anonymous asshole like you is impressed?
arrogant, self-absorbed twit!
:)


author: MikeRyder

text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:45:10 +0200, expires
<[email]> wrote:

lol--you really are full of arrogant self importance, arent you
expired, LITBOH? I am not trying to make an impression you or anyone
else. But you and everyone else WILL choose an impression. And that's
you business, not mine.

LOMALI

lol


author: Mike

text:
On Apr 5, 8:45 am, expires <[email]>
wrote:

  my dearest darling expires,
     I missed this post earlier.
     But I would like to respond
     by saying, "Whu?"


text:
On Sun Apr 05 2009 18:11:45 GMT+0200
mr bill <[email]> wrote:

mr bill, glad to see you looking and feeling
so good today. have you changed your diet?
(where diet means what *you* choose to emphasize)
--expires


text:
On Apr 5, 1:00 pm, expires <[email]>
wrote:

have you not expired yet?
there is little that is more boring
than idiots who try to sound wise
by choosing complexity
over simplicity.
:)


author: [redacted]

text:
On Apr 5, 12:39 pm, expires <[email]>
wrote:

congratulations bill!  you've just been nondual guru'd again.  you
attract 'em like flies : )


author: JRad

text:
On Apr 5, 12:11 pm, mr bill <[email]> wrote:

My answer to that question would be....No, but I bet that at some
point in time he HAS given a "flying fuck" about his own opinion of
himself, or, if he has not, then one day he will.

Who cares if anyone does or doesn't care?  So why waste your time
dwelling on such an inane question ?

Tsk, tsk. Bill.  Such anger.  My oh my.  Makes the angry person's face
appear very ugly.  Next time you attempt to write something like that,
count to ten, then smile a broad, genuine smile.  You'll find it will
be impossible for you to write such venom, which will probably help
you avoid being so badly mannered with your words and give you a sense
of some well being, at least for a little while.

Peace

J.R..


text:
On Apr 5, 2:47 pm, JRad <[email]> wrote:

fuck you john
and blow me
:)


text:
On Apr 7, 1:44 am, mr bill <[email]> wrote:

sorry Bill, hetro you see.

Peace

J.R.


text:
On Apr 7, 2:39 am, MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

Hey Bill, judging by his giggle, looks like you might have found a
volunteer.

J.R.


text:
On Apr 7, 5:08 am, MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

my oh my.  Quite catty of you with a touch of beastiality on your mind
too... how enlightened you are  ....

J.R.


text:
On Apr 7, 4:59 pm, MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

What a queer thing to write.  No doubt this theme is likely to
continue from you for a while.  You're predicbable like that.  You
find an odd angle and keep repeating it for a while hoping somebody
will buy into it.  Very queer indeed.

Oh well, if your high heel shoes fit and make you look fetching for
your man, wear them.  In the meantime, my desires produce only joy for
me.  I guess one could say that from time to time I am gay, yes.  But
not when it comes to orientation.  Sorry, not much in common with you
in this corner, you see.

J.R.


text:
On Sun Apr 05 2009 21:55:00 GMT+0200
MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

"I am not trying to make an impression"?
if thats true, then your loud proclamations
for fighting to defend this newsgroup are
the same bullshit with which you excuse the
bullshit you spread around here in your
feigned motivation for do so.
--expires


author: deb

text:
On Apr 5, 4:18 pm, expires <[email]>
wrote:

Defender positions firmly held, will hold the defender.


text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:00:27 +0200, expires
<[email]> wrote:

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today? lol


text:
On Sun Apr 05 2009 20:30:06 GMT+0200
mr bill <[email]> wrote:

i'm not the true cause of the anger you're
expressing towards me, and your apparent
unawareness of that is making you suffer
(unnecessarily) and not me at all.
--expires


text:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:30:06 -0700 (PDT), mr bill
<[email]> wrote:

Yup. lol


text:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT), JRad <[email]>
wrote:

Tsk tsk, raddy boy, you actually know how to read English words.
Congratulations. That's a first necessary step.

Carry on.

lol

LOMALI


text:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:44:08 -0700 (PDT), mr bill
<[email]> wrote:

lol


text:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:37:01 -0700 (PDT), JRad <[email]>
wrote:

When you've run through all the women with still no luck, you can
always try the Geico gecko.


text:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:38:09 -0700 (PDT), JRad <[email]>
wrote:

The 'giggle' is about you down on your knees, a-sweatin' and a-pantin'

What a disgusting picture that would make! <giggle>


text:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:57:57 -0700 (PDT), JRad <[email]>
wrote:

Careful, raddy-boy, you are beginning to protest too much.

Are you a closet case? have you suppressed your desires out of fear of
society's rejection?


text:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 04:17:23 -0700 (PDT), JRad <[email]>
wrote:

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbladyblah

------> lol


text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:05:20 +0200, expired LITBOH
<[email]> wrote:

whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
whine whine whine whine whine whine whine


text:
"expires" <[email]> wrote in message
news:grb1du$8of$[email]...

LOL


text:
On Sun Apr 05 2009 21:58:15 GMT+0200
MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

LOL too


text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:53:36 +0200, expires
<[email]> wrote:

If you want to tell youself a juicy story about me that's your
problem, not mine.

lol


text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:08:00 +0200, expired, LITBOH
<[email]> wrote:


text:
On Sun Apr 05 2009 23:12:05 GMT+0200
MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

that's just your posted interpretation/claim.
however, when i post in response to you,
it rarely is primarily for your sake, if at
all. you have a very strong inclination to
react as if 'this' was all about you, which
mostly makes you look pretty silly.
--expires


text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:18:14 +0200, expires
<[email]> wrote:

I didnt realize you were so unaware. Wow.


text:
On Sun Apr 05 2009 23:22:15 GMT+0200
MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

LOL
--expires


text:
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:37:49 +0200, expires
<[email]> wrote:


text:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:20:54 +0200, expires
<[email]> wrote:

Did you know that LOL spelled backward is LOL?


text:
On Mon Apr 06 2009 09:32:22 GMT+0200
MikeRyder <[email]> wrote:

i didn't, because i rarely have any
reason to read words etc. backwards.


subject: Re: The supreme teaching (was Re: fear, loneliness, and hopelessness)

text:
On Aug 3, 6:52 pm, Hollywood Lee <[email]> wrote:

how smart are you if you can't understand the or accept a difference
between practice and philosophy? he's got his binary thinking down
pat, not sure that makes him smart. makes him appear smart sometimes.

maybe you're just overexposed to asshole lawyers.


author: halfawake

text:
Awaken21 wrote:

let's see, compliments of the thread so far:

a smart dick
a shit eater
an asshole lawyer

wow!  things are getting rough!

Robert

= = = = = = = = =


author: DT

text:
Awaken21 wrote:

Now, c'mon, guys!

98% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.

DT


author: Catawumpus

text:
Awaken21 <[email]>:

     How stupid is it to lie about a public conversation?  I've
never denied that it's possible to distinguish between
practice and philosophy.  I showed Buddhist philosophy includes
a life-denying perspective Awaken21 seems unhappy to have
there, and I replied to his description of Buddhist practice as
"ultimately joyful and life affirming" by offering the
contrasting example of suicide in the medieval Pure Land school.

-- Catawumpus


text:
DT wrote:

ha ha.
What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A good start.

Robert

= = = = = = =


text:
DT <[email]>:

     Q:  What's the difference between a dead skunk in the road
and a dead lawyer in the road?

     A:  There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

-- Catawumpus


text:
Catawumpus wrote:

It's not a contrasting example, imbecile, it's an *exception* falsely
promoted as a contrasting example by your manipulative debating
technique.  If Buddhist practice on the whole is "ultimately joyful and
life affirming," then one culturally embedded niche of religiously
motivated suicide does not provide evidence to disprove that
proposition, but merely an exception.

Robert

= = = = = =


text:
halfawake <[email]>:

     Religious suicide in the Pure Land school of Buddism makes
a sharp contrast with the idea Buddhist practice is
"ultimately joyful and life affirming," your imbecilic quibbles
about the label notwwithstanding.

     The falsehood is yours, as usual.  The Pure Land religious
suicides contrast with the idea Buddhist practice is
"ultimately joyful and life-affirming."  An example showing the
contrary.

     Strawman.  I didn't offer a claim about "Buddhist practice
on the whole."  I contrasted the religious suicides in
medieval Pure Land Buddism to the idea that Buddist practice is
"ultimately joyful and life-affirming."

-- Catawumpus


text:
Catawumpus wrote:

No, it does not at all.  A bit of suicide is like salt in the soup; it's
the exception that proves the rule, nothing more.  Your idea that
Buddhism can't be "ultimately joyful and life affirming" and still
include a few suicides is dogmatic and ridiculous to the nth degree.
You seem to have some limited logical capacity and yet have the IQ of a
flea!

Please tell me why a few suicides determine whether or not the
OVERALLLLLL Buddhist practice is joyful and life affirming or not?

That's like saying that the joyful life-affirming nature of food is
DENIED by a few chronic OVEREATERS, you massive fool with the head of a
pin!  You are a seemingly intelligent Dunce!

No, the falsehood as always is yours, my little freak!

   The Pure Land religious

It does NOT show the CONTRARY.  It is an exception, and shows nothing
other than that Buddhism does not have a perfect 100% record of joyful
practice among all its participants, but so fucking what?  That doesn't
even make a point.  To find that stupid example to be a contradiction to
my statement you would have to have a significant percentage of Buddhist
practice making people more dour, unhappy and suicidal.  So far in
modern times it only seems to be having that effect on you, and you want
to drag all the Buddhists down with you because you are jealous!!!

What does ultimately mean to you.  I said ULTIMATELY, not everytime and
always.  I take it back - you don't even have a decent sense of logic.
You're just an idiot.

Robert

= = = = = = =


text:
halfawake <[email]>:

     Oh, yes, it does.  Very much so.  Can't imagine why in the
world you didn't notice.

     Wrong again.  Exceptions that prove the rule have the form
"Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks
tonight till 11 o'clock."  The rule is visible in the exception.

     Same strawman that you've attacked three times before.  By
now it's a zombie strawman:  you keep digging the poor old
creature from its grave for the fun of killing it off again and
again.

     The religious suicides in Pure Land Buddhism offer a sharp
contrast to the idea that Buddhist practice is "ultimately
joyful and life-affirming."  An example to the contrary, not an
overarching claim.

     Twice-wrong.  First of all false by your own words.  "It's
not a matter of sample size," you said.  Secondly, false
because contradictions don't require a show of hands.  Even one
exception can disprove a rule.  I'm simply showing the
contrast between the idea that Buddhist practice is "ultimately
joyful and life-affirming" and the suicidal, life-denying
practice of Buddhism by Pure Land adherents during the Japanese
Middle Ages.

     No, you didn't, you confused little thing.  The remark was
from Awaken21, who offered himself as evidence showing
Buddhist practice is "ultimately joyful and life-affirming," in
his words.  Alright, so that's him and others of the type.
But the Pure Land example shows that Buddhist practice can also
be suicidal and life-denying.

-- Catawumpus


text:
Catawumpus wrote:

"can also be" is a much different statement than you have been making.
Of course in the wrong hands anything "can also be" something else.  If
that's all you are saying, your point is amazingly trivial.

Robert

= = = = =


subject: Re: many ways to read someone

text:
halfawake <[email]>:

     Well nothing, man.  Your reply that most Pure Land Buddists
don't kill themselves was a classic example of attacking a
strawman, since nobody here has claimed that they all do or even
that they all ever did.

     Your point was that you were thick-headed enough to miss an
obvious and explicit reference to religious suicide in Pure
Land Buddhism in an article that you linked:  a valid
observation about your difficulty in seeing what you'd prefer to
ignore.

     My point was that Buddhist practice can be life-denying and
suicidal in contrast to "joyful and life-affirming."  The
religious suicides in the medieval Pure Land school show exactly
so.

     You've already admitted there are negative and life-denying
elements in Buddhist teaching.  The suicides in Pure Land
Buddhism show Buddhist practice is not always "ultimately joyful
and life-affirming."

     More evidence of your idiocy.  If I was generalizing on the
subject of Buddhism, considering the sample-size would be
reasonable.  But I just provided an example contrasting with the
idea Buddhist practice is "ultimately joyful and life
affirming," demonstrating that it can be ultimately suicidal and
life-denying.

     Your point was that you had to attack another strawman (the
proposition that suicide in Pure Land Buddhism comments on
Buddhism in general) because you were unable to think up a valid
reply.

     Instead of correcting yourself, you're going to pretend you
said something else, like so:

     The religious suicides in Pure Land Buddhism are a striking
contrast to the claim that Buddhist practice is "ultimately
joyful and life affirming," same as I've said two or three times.

     Straw, straw, straw.  I never said the Pure Land school was
defined by suicide.  I pointed out the religious suicides in
medieval Pure Land Buddhism are a striking contrast to the claim
that Buddhist practice is "ultimately  joyful and life
affirming."  You're now fighting with an entire army of strawmen.

-- Catawumpis


author: james g. keegan jr.

text:
"In June 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a 'statement on
the family' that asserted,
"A wife is to submit herself graciously to her husband."
Two months later, Huckabee endorsed that horseshit in a full-page USA
Today ad
http://thinkprogress.org/


author: The Chief Instigator

subject: Re: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to her husband."

text:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:09:22 -0800, Dr. Michael Mancini <[email]> wrote:

Thanks for the confession that you've never seen them, Bobby.

What's it like, having a memory span shorter than a couple of days?
(Professional means paid to play, which means the NHL, AHL, CHL, ECHL, SPHL,
and modern IHL are professional, not that you'd ever bother to actually ask
someone from any of those leagues.  You'd amuse whoever you accosted.)


author: elizabeth

text:
On Jan 2, 5:28 pm, "Dr. Michael Mancini" <[email]>
wrote:

Project much?


text:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:43:31 -0500, james g. keegan jr. <[email]> wrote:

Bobby's well into pathetic.


author: osprey

text:
On Dec 27, 9:53 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

Nicely put!!!!

Or put it on a self addressed envelope and address it to "S.W.G.S"
"Someone Who Gives a Shit".


text:
On Dec 27, 10:05 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

Keegan is the type who is desperate for female attention, so much so
that he would have to make them totally dependent upon him for
everything.  He is a manipulator and a control freak...which it should
come as no surprise to anyone that he is alone in life.

He is the type of person who wouldn't allow a woman to own a car, for
fear she might drive off somewhere and leave him.


author: Gwyneð Bennetdottir

text:
On Dec 28, 6:15 am, osprey <[email]> wrote:

Like your wife?

Didn't you just criticize a successful pregnant girl who chose to keep
her baby and might choose to continue her career?


text:
On Dec 28, 6:28 am, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

Yes.


text:
On Dec 22, 7:44 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

I've read a great many things. What is one to believe? ;-)

I feel the same way about the idea of deities.


text:
On Dec 27, 8:53 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

As did I.


text:
On Dec 28, 6:13 am, osprey <[email]> wrote:

You would recognize it. After all, that's exactly what you do.

Is that why you've bothered to respond to numerous of my posts?


text:
On Dec 24, 7:59 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

Why are you here, making abounding, pointless rants, that may or may
not upset other posters?

[...]


text:
On Dec 22, 3:03 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

What pint would that be - that "a wife is to submit herself graciously
to her husband," as if it's acceptable?

"Society" has issues with women - that's Jim's point.


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

Society _should_ see wimmin the way he does.

The nonsense point--nonsense flame, more properly-- made by 'jim'
evidences why controling liberals/weirdos/wimmins --like jim-- is a good
thing. If 'jim's' flame in and of itself is accurate-- "[society was hurt
by female care giver, that's why he bitches]" --that too would evidence
why controling wimmins is good.


author: R. Steve Walz

text:
S_MacCloud wrote:
---------------------
He got his sociopathic little ass beaten by a woman and he just
can't get over it.
Steve


author: ªºªandcarole

text:
On Dec 19, 12:32�pm, naive faggot ScottyFLL <[email]> wrote:

Don't need to, we have YOU, mr spellchecker...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

I told ya you would end up being usenets spellchecker :-)


text:
On Dec 20, 9:27 am, "ªºªandcarole" <[email]> wrote:

This coming from the fucking idiot who loves to point out other
peoples spelling mistakes.

"It is a privledge to take care of a mans needs. He can always
find a girlfriend if she doesn't honor her wedding vows."  - christian
Blobtardia's views on marriage.


author: ScottyFLL

text:
On Dec 20, 1:33 pm, [email] wrote:

Indeed.


text:
On Dec 22, 7:44 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

But you believe the millenium-aged fairy-tale that is the Bible,
right?
Fuckwit.


text:
On Dec 23, 2:50 pm, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

Your lack of integrity and courage indicates to me that you're too
afraid to honestly admit that you think the whole Bible thing is a
jumbo-size pile of hogwash, too.


text:
On Dec 24, 6:22 am, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

It's one massive fairytale that doesn't affect me, either way.

<snip>


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

Oh boy then you'll like this one...

"Eat cold cum, you puss-drooling-cunt of a whore."

How's that?


text:
On Dec 13, 7:46�pm, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

It is a privledge to take care of a mans needs. He can always
find a girlfriend if she doesn't honor her wedding vows.


author: Fancypants McPhee

text:
On Dec 19, 12:32 pm, ScottyFLL <[email]> wrote:

That's just lovely.


text:
On Dec 16, 4:31 am, Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

They meant as Christ loved *his* wife.

But none of you would support that.


text:
On Dec 13, 4:46 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

The message is clear - Huckabee is into S&M.

Cat


text:
On Dec 16, 8:40 am, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

Compared to most S&Mers, evangelical fundamentalist is just about the
ugliest thing you can say about someone.
I just wish Huckabee would come out of the closet and show up for the
next debate wearing leather tighties.

Cat


text:
On Dec 14, 2:23 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:

Mary was a goddess. Until the Heishmans of that period raped her
legacy.


text:
On Dec 14, 3:27 am, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

Heishman's too short to play 'topper," so he's the submissive
crossdresser.

So, yes, I guess Wentzky is the initiator and the one in control...in
back.


text:
On Dec 14, 3:02 am, "John D. Wentzky" <[email]> wrote:

Osprey is an man (on paper) adulterer. Can we stone him?


text:
On Dec 14, 3:05 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <[email]> wrote:

Um, what?

No.


text:
On Dec 14, 4:28 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <[email]> wrote:

Osprey's the adulterer.

???


author: Ken Chaddock

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	Nice "spin" there james...but you always try to "sin thuings" don't you ?

	Anyway, for anyone who can't use google, the declaration is a little
less *oppressive* than james would have you believe and actually says
that a woman should 'submit herself graciously' to her husband's
leadership and a husband should 'provide for, protect and lead his
family"...not quite the same thing as SUBMIT to his every
whim...(particulary his sexual perversions)...which is, I'm sure, the
predjudical way james is trying to spin it...

...Ken


author: Quadibloc

text:
On Dec 13, 6:23 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:

No sex was involved!

Aggravated assault is the worst charge you would be able to make
stick.

John Savard


author: John D. Wentzky

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

Horseshit to an adulterous wife stealing and divorce thief keegan,
obviously.
Tired of making such obvious slips?
Or, is it you like whoring your wife out and can;t stand the fact that wives
who let their husbnads love them aren't willing to work for you any?
Or, is it that your whore daughter is a slut who was unfaithful to her
husband?
Which one is it, pervert?


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

   I think everyone already knows he's a total Jesus nut.

   Alas, he may be part of the counter-reaction to the rise
   of militant fundamentalist Islam ... an embodiment of
   the "US" to their "THEM".


text:
On Dec 14, 1:46 am, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

Isn't that how Robert John Heishman conducts his married life? Or, do
you think wife no.2 is laughing at him, behind his back?


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

the poor sociopath followed up a 2007 post to make up his rant!!


author: Dr. Michael Mancini

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

The loser, NHL-wannabe Houston Aeros are pathetic.

By the way, Patrick, I noticed after you lied about Texas having more
professional (NHL) hockey teams than all of Canada, and I PROVED you to be a
liar, you faded off into obscurity. Run away, little hockey boy.


text:
On 2007-12-28 07:13:32 -0500, osprey <[email]> said:

it's interesting that heishman, posting as "osprey," known as the
abortion newsgroups most prolific liar, enjoyes reading posts from
someone who has been called loar kenny.


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

[...]

hey kenny, you seem to have made a friend of osprey, otherwise known as
the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar. amazing that you two found
each other. *smirk*


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

[...]

wow. are you angry that i have confronted so many of your lies or do you
blame me, rather than yourself for your reprimands??


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

	I was making a comment in response to your post. Since you don't seem
to do very well when someone responds to you, I would suggest that,
rather than make posts in usenet, you should write your comments on a
piece of paper, self address an envelope and mail them back to
yourself...that way, everything you hear and ses will agree with
your...ah, rather limited point of view...

...Ken


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

  	If you had been following the thread...and had had some reasonable
reading comprehension skills...you would know what Society's "point" was
and just how well james had proven Society to be right...

...Ken
PS I expect that Society's "pint" is something like a nice lager, or
maybe a bitters ?

	and james displays a rather condescending and paternalistic attitude
that leads some here to believe that he thinks that women are helpless
little creatures who need special privileges and big strong men (like
him?) to protect them because they really can't function as adults in
the really real world...

...Ken


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

	Did I say that I did ?

	If you ASS=U-med that I did, why did you ask the question ? You are a
little slow aren't you ?

...Ken


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

	Since much of what has been written about in the bible has been
independently verified by written history from other ancient,
non-Jewish, non-Christian cultures and by archeological research, it
cannot be said with any degree of credibility that the "whole Bible
thing is a jumbo-size pile of hogwash"...you can assert that position
out of "faith" (and yes, a deliberate lack of faith is as much a
religious, or at least semi-religious belief system as any other belief
system)
	I think what can be said is that the religious spin put on the new
testament by the early Christian Church is more about crafting a
religious mythology and solidifying their place of power in the Roman
Empire than about making an accurate record of the life of Jesus Christ
and that this has so muddied the waters that conspiracy theories like
those proposed by Baigent, Leigh, Henry & Lincoln and by Dan Brown seem
"credible" where no real credibility exists.

...Ken


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

	Then why are you hear making comments that are bound to upset and
disturb some posters ? If you were here to debate the veracity of the
bible, then I would expect you to debate the veracity of the bible, not
simply go off on anti-Christian rants and ignore honest counter opinion.
   I would suggest that your posting is aa abusive activity and that you
should be somewhat ashamed of your behaviour...

...Ken


text:
Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir wrote:

	You've been reading The Da Vinci Code haven't you ?

	I would consider it, if there was even one spec of credible evidence to
support it...

...Ken


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

that might only be on the surface .... dig deeper for more ugliness.


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

that would assure him of the gop nomination.


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 "Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir" <[email]> wrote:

perhaps wentzky is just using him in preparation for his own
incarceration. wentzky is much smarter than osprey and probably can
easily manipulate him.


text:
"Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I wan't writing to Osprey.

You never committed the crime of adultery?


text:
"Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Dec 14, 3:05 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <[email]> wrote:

*Um, what?

Osprey is keegan?

*No.

I guess it would be permitted then.


text:
In article <6Uy8j.2986$UZ4.1978@edtnps89>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

nice lie kenny, through misdirection.

i can see why you deleted the accurate quote with citations before you
tried your misrepresentation.


text:
In article <wvl8j.28190$[email]>,
 "John D. Wentzky" <[email]> wrote:

have you been sleeping with heishman again?


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 "Gwyneï¿½ Bennetdottir" <[email]> wrote:

based on his behavior here over an extended time, i'd have to guess the
latter.


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	apparently another person who takes issue with your condescending,
paternalistic attitude toward women...

...Ken
PS is being called an manipulator and control freak worse than being
called a liar ?


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	james, james, james...<snipping> someone's post and then calling them a
liar isn't exactly what would be considered "confronting" or
"reprimanding" them...
	You know, if you'd actually make a point sometime...which I have yet to
see you do in the several years I've been aware of you, or were to
actually taking part in some pro-choice activities...might go some way
to restoring you some shred of credibility as a self professed
pro-choice crusader...

...Ken


text:
In article <_JZcj.21951$wy2.20188@edtnps90>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

[...]

no wonder kenny has been referred to as liar kenny.


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	Let's try again shall we...so that even james and Bob officer can look
it up...from :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention#Position_statements

Article XVIII. The Family. The husband and wife are of EQUAL WORTH
before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage
relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to
love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given
responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A
wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her
husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.
She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus EQUAL TO HIM,
has the God-given responsibility to RESPECT her husband and to serve as
his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

	So the Southern Baptist Convention asserts, quite forcefully in fact,
the EQUALITY of husband and wife...hummm, I can see where that would
REALLY upset james and Bob Officer...the very idea that a man could be
equal to a woman...the very idea !

...Ken


text:
In article <SHtdj.42788$UZ4.33843@edtnps89>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

he seems far more concerned with my commentaries on his lies, just as
you seem to become irate when i comment on your misrepresentations.


text:
In article <gNtdj.42789$UZ4.37731@edtnps89>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

kenny, your misrepresentations have taken on the flavor of insanity.


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	only by you...and since we're being frank, you are referred to by far
worse...by quite a few other posters :-)

...Ken


text:
In article <0_09j.16497$5l3.14493@edtnps82>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

i see even you were too embarrassed to reinsert the quote you deleted
before you lied about it again.


text:
In article <ABtdj.42786$UZ4.28573@edtnps89>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

then will you leave the abortion newsgroups forever if i can post an
article in it's entirety which proves your statement is a lie?
specifically, you have been referred to as liar kenny by someone other
than me.

you better run away from that challenge kenny.


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	Well james, since I wasn't able to verify the "quote with citations"
that you mention with any *credible* citations, I though I'd post the
*Actual* Article from the Southern Baptist Convention position statement
on the family...I know that having me post the *REAL* quote probably
disrupted your prejudicial little rant...but...too bad :-)

...Ken


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	With your extensive history of dishonest editing, ad homonym attack and
outright lying, I wouldn't be concerned with either the intelligence or
credibility of anyone who were to "believe" anything you write...you
have no credible OR ethical basis to make any assertion concerning me...

	So you have a "pre-edited" post all ready made up do you ?

...Ken


text:
In article <ncjbj.40492$5l3.5582@edtnps82>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

[...]

i understand you have a problem with credibility.


text:
In article <4Kzbj.32526$UZ4.5614@edtnps89>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

deal with it.


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

	and again ! Consistency, your name is james :-)

...Ken


text:
In article <o8Obj.16280$wy2.3878@edtnps90>,
 Ken Chaddock <[email]> wrote:

[...]

keep trying kenny.


author: STEADY EDDY

subject: Re: Klaud ShitzenPantsenFartz - A funny name?

text:
On Feb 1, 8:49 pm, STEADY EDDY <[email]> wrote:

Stop


text:
On Feb 1, 8:49 pm, STEADY EDDY <[email]> wrote:

Stop it


text:
On Feb 1, 8:49 pm, STEADY EDDY <[email]> wrote:

don't do it


text:
On Feb 1, 8:49 pm, STEADY EDDY <[email]> wrote:

AmyLeVere is banned for 30 days


text:
On Feb 2, 7:46 am, deep wrote:

You are Deep. I know you think you are slick by hiding your name. The
facts are simple. You are a fucking liar who constantly posts bullshit
just to get a response. Your lies are so documented that you are the
one disconnected from reality. You get a thrill getting a response
from Grey, Kaud, gummer and the resident nitwitt Amy. When you quit
posting lies I may back off. asshole.


text:
On Feb 2, 7:54 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <[email]>
wrote:

God you just can't wait to respond to Deep. He has got you on a
string. For once why not button up your porthole. Just once.


author: deep

text:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 07:43:06 -0800 (PST), STEADY EDDY
<[email]> wrote:

You constantly struggle with that thing called reality, don't you?


author: Kontac (nospam

text:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:46:51 -0700, deep wrote:

I think he is so challanged by reality that he expects coffee to stir
itself. Being a stirrer and spoon here doesn't effect your coffee
making...

--
Kontac |=] | |>--- A taste of life...


author: Klaus Schadenfreude

text:
Speaking of struggling with reality.....................

http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's FORTRESS OF LIES
Now With Over 300 Documented
Lies, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Distortions, and Deceptions!


author: ReneMol

text:
"deep" wrote in message news:[email]...

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 07:43:06 -0800 (PST), STEADY EDDY
<[email]> wrote:

You constantly struggle with that thing called reality, don't you?

###

Like you, he does indeed.


author: Kent Paul Dolan

subject: entrainment of mishaps

text:
"Thomas the Tank Engine and the Really Bad,
Ugly, Horrid, Stupid Day":

(Or, "what you get for driving your train
at breakneck speed on the second floor of
an office building"):

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2363/945/400/300px-Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1865.jpg

xanthian.


subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
Kate Orman wrote:

You really should warn those of us of tender
age before posting links to "upskirt" pr0n,
Kate.

xanthian.


author: Kate Orman

subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
* BLACK BOX OF FROGS wrote:

Alas!

http://tinyurl.com/nav6e

E-LE-VATE!


author: * BLACK BOX OF FROGS

subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

Looks like my week.  Month.

Teach me to keep feeding the compulsion to look up old loves
(lost/tossed/crossed) on the net.
At least the none of these sets is a superset of any other:
         RedHat
         SSRI
         Morris dancing

However, they all seem to intersect to contain more than one, and so
far most appear in more than one, which disturbs me.


subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

Reminded me unavoidably of this:

http://shillpages.com/dw/story/d5/st--6p50.jpg

http://shillpages.com/dw/story/d5/st--6p51.jpg

http://shillpages.com/dw/story/d5/st--6p52.jpg

This is why the Movellans invented bungee jumping.

- Kate


subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
Kate Orman wrote:

Firefox wouldn't go there directly, proclaiming some
B.S. about cookies being turned off (they weren't)
causing too many access loops.

I backed up to the site level and navigated back down
to the images successfully, anyway.

Perhaps, but to me, Dr. Who being undoubtedly a
successful time traveller, it looks suspiciously like a
rehearsal for the 1865 train wreck.

xanthian.


author: >parr(*>

subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
"Kent Paul Dolan" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
| "Thomas the Tank Engine and the Really Bad,
| Ugly, Horrid, Stupid Day":
|
| (Or, "what you get for driving your train
| at breakneck speed on the second floor of
| an office building"):
|
|
|
|
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2363/945/400/300px-Train_wreck_at_Mon
tparnasse_1865.jpg
|
Wasn't it Brunel who was the first to put that in his blog?


subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
Kate Orman wrote:

I knew there was a reason I bought a house with entrance stairs...


author: nikolai kingsley

subject: Re: entrainment of mishaps

text:
or perhaps the local vet, protesting the high prices of vending-machine
snacks.


author: Joe Bruno

subject: Impeach Obama

text:
iq_    View profile
  More options Oct 8, 3:02 pm

Newsgroups: alt.impeach.bush, alt.politics.republicans,
alt.politics.democrats, alt.culture.alaska
From: iq_ <[email]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 3:02 pm
Subject: Help impeach Obama by signing up now at
impeachobamacampaign.com
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
You can join us by using the sign-up button below to read and then
add
your name to the Articles of Impeachment we've drawn-up against
Barack
Hussein Obama.

If, after reading the Articles of Impeachment against Barack Hussein
Obama, you agree that action must be taken now, all you have to do to
join our growing network of patriotic Americans is add your name
(which will remain on our secure form and be kept in the strictest
confidence until the time is right) to the Articles of Impeachment
against Barack Hussein Obama.

That's all there is to it. Be among the first to join this growing
nationwide movement and help us spread the word far-and-wide.
Together, we can take back our country before it is too late.
more at:
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/


author: Sergei

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 14, 9:57 am, I'll Always Be 14/10/09
<[email]> wrote:

The amendment says the government cannot take my guns away.
I can use them for self-defense if I want to.
In any event, no matter what you say about it, I'll continue to bear
arms as long as it is legal as it has been since 1789. You can't take
them and will never convince me to give them up.
You're actually very stupid to even try.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 14, 9:57 am, I'll Always Be 14/10/09
<[email]> wrote:

The militia was composed of individual citizens with their own weapons.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 14, 10:24 am, Sergei <[email]> wrote:

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=militia&page=1&qsrc=121&ab=7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awrm.org%2Fmission.htm


author: NefeshBarYochai

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
His testimony in his book is evidence enough.

Obama is a liar of liars.  Even those in congress yell out in public
forum and call him a liar.  This has never happened before in American
politics until Obama usurped the office of President.

His sworn testimony is evidence.

We don't know he has managed to cover his where abouts for about eight
years.

As a lawyer for ACORN he organized ACORN in to what it is today.

I for allowing every one to vote not just the minorities like ACORN
made while their members the Black Panthers stood outside of polling
places with stick to keep the whites out.

Face is Obama is a fascist dictator puppet of the communist Muslims
that don’t want him sending reinforcements into Afghanistan.  The
Muslims want a clean victory with America as the losers.  Hussein
Obama is in office to make sure that happens.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 10:40 pm, I'll Always Be 13/10/09
<[email]> wrote:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.


author: Rabbi Doctor Avraham America, Ph.D

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 14, 12:05 am, Sergei <[email]> wrote:

Does that mean that me, a mentally ill, bi-polar manic depressive-
schizophrenic that is on court ordered medication because of two
separate incidents where I was charged with felony assaults on police
officers both involving weapons, once with a sawed off twelve gauge
shotgun and the other time with a 9mm Walther PPK, can again own
firearms?  It should be legal for me to own them since that is my
constitutional right.  Just because I was arrested and incarcerated on
felony charges doesn’t mean I’m no longer an American citizen or does
it?

Even if I could own firearms, I wouldn’t.  I accept the laws this
State has embedded in my being.  It shouldn’t be this way but here in
Colorado the way the law is it is better to let the criminal murder
you then to kill him or her and go to jail especially if you are
Jewish.  The mistake I made when I had weapons was instead of letting
the police arrest me I should have just turned the weapon on myself
and ended it with out hurting anyone else.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 10:53 am, BDK <[email]> wrote:

To demonstrate that I'm not the only one who wants to be rid of Obama.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 4:25 pm, I'll Always Be 13/10/09
<[email]> wrote:

I am doing my campaign on my own and they are doing theirs, idiot.
As usual, you can't read.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 5:35 pm, Sergei <[email]> wrote:

Sergi any normal, G-d fearing decent person that has a least the
morals of the majority of non-Acornized civilian or non-civilian
American citizens in his or her right uncorrupt mind would ever vote
for Hussein Obama.  Keep up the good work and remember the left wing
liberal media has not the courage it takes to subjugate Americans as
Dhimmis of the communist Muslim governments of the world.  Down with
American fascism and up with American Capitalism.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 4:57 pm, NefeshBarYochai <[email]> wrote:

Thanks. I certainly will.


author: Patrick Keenan

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

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

Yeah, that's pretty funny.   What a loon.     He can't identify any actual
"crime"  that Mr. Obama has committed, or any statute that identifies one.
The basis of his claim seems to be that the crime is "whatever Congress
decides it is" and to hell with US law.

His complaint that Mr. Obama has increased the debt is equally amusing,
because he made no such complaint about the massive increase in the debt
prior to Mr. Obama's election.

He doesn't care about laws or who got you into debt.   He just doesn't want
Mr. Obama as President.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 6:36 pm, "Patrick Keenan" <[email]> wrote:

Obama has never been prosecuted with his use of cocaine.  He admits
joyously to his use of cocaine in his book.  Then there is the murder
Larry Sinclair has called him on.  How about the voter fraud ACORN has
perpetuated.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 7:21 am, [email] wrote:

This isn't my campaign. Read the post.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
On Oct 13, 9:45 am, Joe Bruno <[email]> wrote:

You need help, Bluto.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
"Sergei" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Oct 14, 9:57 am, I'll Always Be 14/10/09
<[email]> wrote:

|The amendment says the government cannot take my guns away.

And where, exactly, does it say this?

Here's a hint: It doesn't.

If you're an American, don't you find it odd that it's people from other
countries have to tell you how your own laws work?

Have you considered education, perhaps civics classes?


author: I'll Always Be 15/10/09

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article
<bdaa260c-10d2-409c-9223-d5fa1eb6d669@a3
2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 Sergei <[email]> wrote:

It says neither. Just admit that you
suck as bad at facts as the rest of your
nil friends.

I think people like you should have
guns. Lots of guns. Plenty of ammo also.
Eventually you or your kids will kill
each other. A win-win-win situation


author: I'll Always Be 14/10/09

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article
<f51bd8d2-5f32-4b53-a08e-af57b1b4970a@b2
g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
 Sergei <[email]> wrote:

That's a "well regulated militia" so in
your world regulating guns is not part
of the Constitution?

I notice your inability to provide proof
of the part of the constitution that
guarantees the right of "self-protection"


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
"Sergei" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Oct 14, 9:57 am, I'll Always Be 14/10/09
<[email]> wrote:

| The militia was composed of individual citizens with their own weapons.

Are you just choosing to ignore specific words in the Constitution?

Here's a hint:   the word is "regulated".


author: BDK

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article <fd736e9a-5090-469d-b59a-bac66ba32365@
12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, [email] says...

Wow, what are you smoking? It must be some really great shit to make you
trip like you are..

I wonder what you'll think when you come down and read the stuff you
post?


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article
<31003dd1-330e-4f17-a42b-2ed5c44ac2f3@j4
g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
 Sergei <[email]> wrote:

I notice the word "militia" which in no
way is an individual (nor is "people" an
individual). I also do not see the words
"self-defense"


author: I'll Always Be 13/10/09

subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article
<d2a77a0a-a569-4443-982c-1d81e9d9e0c1@j3
9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
 Sergei <[email]> wrote:

More like to demonstrate your total
unwillingness to do anything by yourself

or just your general ineptness and
incompetence


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article
<07cb0c60-56eb-4051-ada6-5140382269d7@f1
6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 Sergei <[email]> wrote:

IOW you can't get any help.

As to the reading part, I'm still
waiting for you to provide a link
showing that the US Constitution allows
guns for "self-defense"


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
"NefeshBarYochai" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Oct 13, 6:36 pm, "Patrick Keenan" <[email]> wrote:

|Obama has never been prosecuted with his use of cocaine.  He admits
|joyously to his use of cocaine in his book.  Then there is the murder
|Larry Sinclair has called him on.  How about the voter fraud ACORN has
|perpetuated.
==================

1) a) There would need to be evidence to file a charge.   But you don't
actually have anything that's presentable in court - you know, like
evidence - do you?
1) b) Would you prefer a politician who blatantly lies?   Maybe you would.

2) Larry Sinclair?   Again, there isn't anything that's presentable in
court - you know, like evidence - is there?

How many times has he been in jail for lying?

3) a) Mr. Obama does not control Acorn, any more than an average member
controls the Republican party.
3) b) ACORN.   Ah, I see.   You just don't want minorities voting.   Or
being President.


subject: Re: Impeach Obama

text:
In article <cb104455-7633-4089-82b6-5d3cfc043ee3
@j32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, [email] says...

Then why do you keep posting the nonsense, over and over again?


subject: Did/Does Europe (or UK) care about 9/11

text:
does europe (or the UK) care about what happened in the U.S. on
9/11/2001?  Were you guys happy or sad or angry?  I have some brit
friends but they are friends so i didnt expect them to say they were
elated, they were pissed and shocked too.  But what about now? Does
europe feel there is a war on terror or is it just the US (and maybe
UK?) ... Do all europeans hate BUSH? Or is this just the vacuum of
american media belching forward more b.s.? just curious ...


author: caronteone

subject: Re: Did/Does Europe (or UK) care about 9/11

text:
rothko_ wrote:
For weeks here people were annihilited by the tragedy.
Everybody here are conscious of the (tragic),importance of those
thousands of lives destroyed by fools who think to be heroes of some
kind of war ordered by God.
But many people, like me see it in another way too...
There's the human tragedy, and I can guarantee, that I've never seen
anybody to show less that sad (sorry for the poorness of the word but I
don't have the dictionary here), for what happened.
On another side, there is the consiousness that these terrorism has an
origin in the obscurantism and ignorance of the countries it came from.
However, there is the fact that terrorism tries to hit mostly US, and
their most active allies (Spain a few months ago).
The reason isn't difficult to find: US attcked without continuity
solution, many Islamic counties since 1983, frequently without declaring
a war.
Bombing in Iraq continued since 1991 and are (maybe) stopping now, 13
years later...
I think that this US peculiar way to pursue its interest in the middle
east (that is oil, as for everycountry on this planet), contributed to
the hatred this country is paying the price of.
We are aware that one thing is the govern and another is the people.
So if there is hate somewhere, it usually is for the governors (Bush)
and not for the people.
I hope this could help you find the answer you're looking for.
Regards.


author: Nils Zonneveld

text:
rothko_ wrote:

Yes, of course, it had left a deep impression, people were very upset.
At the other hand, life goes on. Other disasters happen with even more
devastating body counts. And while it is still a turning point in
history, I think that Europe is less focused on the events on 11
september 2001 than the US. Which I think is quite understandable, from
the perpectives of both sides of the Atlantic.

People were very sad. There have been memorial services here in the
Netherlands too, short after 11 september 2001. But life goes on and a
traumatic event for the Dutch took place on 6 may 2002. In this case it
was about the first political murder in four centuries in this country.
When Pim Fortuyn was killed this country became very introverted, as it
needed to do a lot of soulsearching.

I was in The Hague near the govt. buildings and parliament that evening
by sheer coincidence. I've seen the mobs crying for blood. It was a
freightening experience I can tell you. I really thought that civil war
could be at hand. After that you tend to worry a bit less about what
happens overseas.

It is. But the US administration only makes matters worse. Iraq had
nothing to do with Al Qaida. Motives to attack Iraq may have been
control over one of the most vast suplies of oil in the Middle East, a
family feud, or the advance of the Euro. One thing is certain, it has
zilch to do with war against terror.

Personally I think that a "war against terror" is the wrong concept to
fight terror. A war is something between nations. It tends to be rather
ineffective against other manaces. Think the "war on drugs". It has only
made matters worse.

No I don't hate Bush. In fact i wish him all the best. I hope he retires
soon, so that he can really enjoy the honest and simple life on his
ranch without being bothered by the complexities of government.

Nils


author: oops

text:
[email] (rothko_) wrote:

It was their own fault, a result of their aggressive foreign policy
that had to come home one day or the other. The US isn't exactly a
peaceful nation.

I'm still not excluding the possibility that they have done it to
themselves deliberately.

I first thought it was a joke, actually. Then I was amazed, and I was
upset that it might have been 40,000 casualties, which I thought was
a pretty high number of dead people. Then it turned out to be 3,000.

I was worried that this attack was blamed on terrorist elements, and
that it wasn't perceived as a result of American policy. The conclusions
were drawn in a matter of minutes, this was not good and that made me
very upset.

The number of dead people I thought was pretty minor, not worth much
interest. Iraq had 500,000 dead innocent children from sanctions, famines
can claim the lives of tremendous amounts of people, that is the stuff
of international calamities. 9/11 didn't rise to that level, just another
"accident".

The attack was well deserved, if it actually was a terrorist attack.

I don't think I am representative of Europe, however I think it is
just the US, not even the UK. The "war on terror" is nonsense, it
doesn't exist beyond propaganda. Terrorists are Bush's best friend,
they create the market for weapons and fear that feed his wallet and
policies.

No, most Europeans do actually hate Bush quite fiercely for what I know.
That doesn't at all mean they hate the US though, and that seems to be
the angle that the US media is ignoring. They equate Bush with America,
Europeans don't.

You're welcome.


author: Simonin J.C.

text:
I remember the day when those attacks took place. The planes flying
into the towers again and again during that afternoon, the pictures of
the people fleeing, etc... We all were stunned and really full of
compassion, we all felt we were "Americans".
And then came the critical questions, the books, the articles in the
periodicals and papers. To make it short:
Those 19 Arab hijackers passed all the controls and climbed aboard
those 4 (four)planes without problems. And yet there is no trace of
them in the passenger lists or crew lists, as established by
CNN........
At least five of those murderers were subsequently found alive and
well between Tunis and Rhyiad.....
The Patriot Act is a rather complex legal document which cannot have
been established in so short a time, jï¿½st after those attacvks and the
day it was submitted to Congress. It must have been set up before.....
The decision to invade Afhganistan was taken before Setp.11.2001....
The UFO which crashed into the Pentagon wasn't the passenger
plane.......
Etc,etc,etc........
We simply don't believe in your Govet. And presently, the Americans
are on their way to a Fascist dictatorship.


text:
Nils Zonneveld <[email]> wrote:

I think that most people dislike Bush, however most people like the
US.  The link between Bush and the US at large hasn't been made yet,
because Bush has been elected on the basis of pre election propaganda,
even people who dislike Bush will know that you can make a mistake
on the basis of such propaganda; mistakes are only human. Now on the
other hand Americans know what Bush is all about, they can reject
this kind of policy and come away relatively unscathed in terms of
public opinion (in Europe). If however the Americans re-elect Bush,
knowing full well what Bush is all about, then naturally the dislike
for Bush will be transfered unto the American people more significantly
IMHO. To re-elect Bush means to say to agree with Bush's policies,
this is probably not acceptable to most people here, and there would
probably be a significant downturn in the like-ability of Americans.

Personally I'd like Kerry to become president, even though I have
little faith in him ultimately. He too is just another super rich
boy. I like the world more democratic, I think there are better short
term chances for that with Kerry then Bush (I mean more democratic
inside the US and Europe, the Middle East isn't our business). But
I also estimate that the American people might be better off with
a period of dictatorship under their belt, so that they may become
less naive and less nationalistic, more to the left. American politics
seems to be completely polluted with anti communist and pro capitalist
propaganda, and nationalism, not to mention fundamentalist religion. A
kick in the butt might focus the Americans back unto what's real.

The Americans seem to have picked up from the French revolution only
"freedom", and left "brotherhood" and "equality" out of it. This
means IMHO that the American brand of "freedom" has grown too rapidly
compared to other issues, and is now including first and foremost,
the "freedom to exploit others." That is ultimate freedom, but only
for the select "winners of the game". The Americans seem to have
forgotten that the freedom of one person ends, where that of another
begins. Such concepts are found in "equality" and "brotherhood,"
which Americans call "communist."

Also you might argue that in communist Russia, the emphasis was
completely on "brotherhood," with the exclusion of "freedom".
Communism and capitalism both produce the same abuses they claim to
overcome though: exploitive hierarchy. Communism claims to concentrate
power to distribute wealth, however in the end wealth gets centralized
as well, because altruism isn't a trait of most people, especially
those who strive for power. Capitalism claims to give everyone equal
chances, but reward those that win the game the freedom to exploit
others, "winner takes all". Capitalism also fails to keep chances equal
across generations. Equality of chances is a myth, children are not
equal, and parents are not in equal positions to aide their children.
The capitalist brand of "equality" is nonsense, the capitalist brand
of "brotherhood" doesn't seem to exist. Similarly, "equality" in
communism seems to mean "everyone is equal in having pretty much zero
political influence," which isn't that equal ultimately. And "freedom"
is also severely limited in communism, ofcourse, like "brotherhood"
is failing in capitalism, so is "freedom" failing in communism. And they
both employ unworthy replacements for "equality," caricatural.

To finally get the Americans to understand that their capitalism leads
to abuses is worth something, hence a vote for Bush could be a vote
for long term investment in American understanding relating to such
fundamental issues as capitalism and nationalism. Bush is more of a
capitalist then even Kerry, therefore his election could show more
what it is all about then Kerry's. Therefore in the long term with
enhanced US understanding about capitalism (enhanced by increased
running wild of capitalism), a more power distributed state might
be possible.

IMHO


text:
oops wrote:

Complete and utter bullshit. You have not the faintest idea of what you
are saying. Those people were innocent. To blame their deaths on
themselves is an outrageous insult to anything that is human.

And neither are muslim fanatics very peaceful. What do you suggest? That
the western world switches to _their_ believes?

Go visit alt.conspiracy and don't forget your tin foil hat.

Some things have a different impact. The murder of Pim Fortuyn was just
the life of one man, but the impact on the Dutch society and maybe even
to some extend the European society was drastic.

Again, utter crap. I think you wouldn't have the guts to repeat that
statement face to face to the relatives of one of the victims.

Nils


text:
[email] (Simonin J.C.) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

many of the terrorists used stolen identities, multiple forms of
identification obtained by claiming "lost" and the replaced, it was
very easy pre 9/11

i honestly wouldnt know, but it wouldnt suprise me if there are other
bits of legislation on the back burner regarding other "unforseen
events".

No, the CIA was considering recruiting Al-qaeda & the taliban to
disrupt Iran & maybe China and even sent millions to the taliban up
until just months before 9/11.

UFO? it was pretty clear to my eyes i was looking at an airplane
remains.

care to elaborate on this dictatorship?


text:
Nils Zonneveld <[email]> wrote:

Well well well, aren't we emotional. This is international relations
friend, and that's the level at which to approach the subject. Ofcourse
at a smaller more detailed level, every act of a US soldier killing a
German soldier was an act of brutal pre-meditated murder. Yet, do I hear
a lot of grief expressed over the millions of "murders" of Nazi soldiers ?
Wasn't this "an insult to anything that is human". Well actually it was
an insult to anything that is human, ultimately. However, there is also
a bigger picture, a bigger picture which is discussed in these political
Usenet groups.

That bigger picture includes US meddling in the Middle East, its support
for Saudi-Arabia, and on an even wider scale its war in Vietnam, its
overthrow of the Chile democratic government. These are things that
aren't disputed. Nobody claims the Vietnam war didn't happen. Other things
that the US did in the same vein aren't so well known or widely believed.
However, that which it did do and admit to is already a lot of mischief.

To not see 9/11 in that light is an insult to human intelligence (if I may
borrow you manner of speaking). 9/11 appears to be retribution for crimes
of America in the Middle East. It is in fact a complete miracle why the
Vietnamese haven't bombed the US yet, isn't it.

If I come to your home, kill your relatives and cut off your arm, and
there is no justice in the country whatsoever, how angry should I be
with you if you kill my cat, or a relative of mine ? Especially if you
attacked me unprovoked, or for instance because I had a nice garden
with apples that you wanted to steal ?

Sure, that relative he killed would be innocent, but how innocent would
I be ? How much right do I have to blame you for such a retribution ?
Wouldn't it be totally "bullshit" to accuse you of being inhuman for
coming back to me for justice ?

And that story is even a weak version. The US government is a democratic
one, hence the people in the US "are" their government. This makes them
complicit in its actions. Secondly, the WTC towers were occupied by
big business, which also has a great influence over US policy. Big business,
which apparently is now ravaging the Iraqi territory to satisfy its lust
for oil and power.

How can you blame the terrorists of 9/11, how can you be so "inhuman"
not to understand their position ? Weren't they killed in the attack
as well, even ?

The Muslims aren't meddling in the US, are they trying to grab US oil
fields ? No, they're just there in the Middle East, their place. We should
indeed switch to their believes: they stay in their own region, so should
we.

Insults come from men without arguments.

Would you say that the death of Nazi soldiers was "a great success"
when you are face to face with a mother in tears ? These are different
levels of abstraction. All death is bad, but some dead are less
innocent then others, and some murders are more understandable then
others. Some murders are meant to stop more murder, even. I see 9/11
in that light, an attempt to stop the US super power from killing more
innocent people in its greed wars around the world. You are celebrating
their cause, celebrating their martyrs, while there is blood all over
America from every continent.  Blood for the sake of money and power,
and veterans from WW2 (American veterans) I have heard saying that even
that war was fought to a great extend to satisfy the need for empire
by the allies. If it takes a nuke to explode in NYC to stop the yanks
from continuing to wage their wars on others, in places they have no
right to be, then I would be for it. If war doesn't hurt them enough,
why should they stop.

I only hope now that Iran will get their nuke ASAP, so they can
continue to run their own country without western interference and
colonial war. If we get a nuke here in my own city, to scare us
out of Iraq, a place we have no business in assisting in the US
oil grab, then yes I would be in favor of that too. These are the
dynamics that we have entered, these are the dynamics which are
our just wage.

Ofcourse I want peace everywhere. But there isn't, and those that start
wars need to be punished for it or we will have more war still.

If you are raising hell abouth 9/11, then you should be raising hell
about criminals getting thrown in prison. Are you ? These people are
retributed for their crimes by our society. In international affairs,
such as offensive war for grabbing oil, there is no real "court." Are
we going to get Bush and Blair for the international tribunal ? Have
American commanders been sentenced for their Vietnam adventure ? No,
in international relations, we are left with primitive justice, that
form from which our own evolved and is based upon. That is a system
of deterrance: if you do this bad thing, we will do this other bad
thing to you. It prevents crime, doesn't it.

You bond with the US people, but you do not bond with the Arabs. Why,
aren't they human enough ? You claim you're such a "good human,"
by weeping over the 9/11 death's, are you also weeping over the
arabs the Americans are killing and have surpressed, the Vietnamese
they have killed ? To me, you may be well intentioned and have good
emotions about bad things, but you fail to see the larger picture.
It doesn't at all mean I am unemotional about 9/11, it is an opportunity
for America to reconsidder its foreign policy. 9/11 was 3,000 dead,
how many has America killed in securing its interests since WW2 ?
3,000 ? More ? If you want to be emotional, at least get it right.

The cries about 9/11 by Europe is an insult to intelligence, and an
insult to international humanity at large. It is a show of white men
nationalism. A show of hatred for those that were larger in number
but who are forgotten but still killed, who'se devestated lives by
American bombs and power politics (notably the 500,000 dead Iraqi
children from sanctions against Iraq, which Allbright said famously
was "worth it") were ignored, and for whom we do not demand justice
in any way whatsoever. The show of "compashion" for the US on 9/11
was a day of great shame for Europe. It showed how childish it's pet
believes are, how little notice we pay to the crimes that the western
world is commiting that were revenged by 9/11 (in the accepted version
that arab terrorists ultimately did it at least). Apparently we have
a long way to go here in the west before we realize that other people
are poeple too. Shame, shame on Europe.