author: Greg

subject: Re: Suicide anyone?  (was heaven and hell)

text:
But Scott, what if your children were happy despite the stress, what if
they moved to another country, found their vocation, fell in love, made
many friends, found peace....gave you happiness? However to say you
can't predict the future would be wrong.....maybe your children would
learn how to be unhappy from you...yes?

[snip]
[snip]

Yes I agree, but isn't it possible the religion was based originally on
some kind of Philosophical Knowledge. When the originator died the
religion is corrupted for political aims. (The Church is politically
powerful but it's ideas have no power!)

Do these conflicting entities create corresponding personality traits in
the child I wonder? The child becomes more concious with age. It learns
and absorbs the opinions/attitudes of others to protect and cloth itself
with personality. This explains why as adults we are unfocused, with
conflicting desires each one calling itself *us*. Since we identify
completely with these personalities or parts, we do the most bizarre
things. e.g. I argue with my friend A, who is telling me about idea X,
having disagreed with her, 2 days later I tell idea X to my friend B as
if it were mine! OR I disagree in principal with using money yet enjoy
spending it......we are mad!

The parents are not evil they are simply working according to their own
split up personalities, each one thinking it speaks for the whole of
them....each one mainly unaware of the others.....and worst of all each
one usually unaware of its motivating reason/cause. (i.e. inherited
attitude from/towards parents...."they are as screwed up as their own
parents!" )

These influences all exist because we are too lazy and indulge too much.
e.g. "I would like everyone to have enough money yet I play the lottery
so I can get loads to spend on myself."
These institutions are reflections of all our weaknesses - desire for
power, greed, snobbery etc. etc. But you can't believe you are not to
blame - everyone has some of these traits - just examining yourself,
many of your thoughts are related to people not considering *you* not
giving *you* enough of a chance society isn't fair to *you*, also
because people lust after money *you* feel they are evil, *you* condemn
and maybe hate people you don't know - rather you should feel sorry for
them? Your payback is the ability to feel aloof and outside. (Are you so
sure you wouldn't be a banker had your own circumstances been
different?). Your position is easy, try indulging in money whilst
maintaing your view it is only because you are forced to......that would
be difficult!...Try doing something daring and wild - you only live
once.....In fact try doing *anything* different than what you feel safe,
normal and comfortable doing (even if this is feeling despondent) you'll
realise how fixed we ALL are...convinced we are right, identifiying for
all we are worth with our viewpoints in our corner. We do this to feel
safe and fixed.....really think....do you remember as a child the world
was exciting and full of possibilities.....as an adult they are still
there but we are scared and hide behind "points of view" to avoid having
to "DO" anything....you would allow a piece of personality in you to
call itself YOU and set the path of your life in a certain way....as do
we all!

Do you see yourself as so different from almost every other person?
Yes, you must play the game in order to win or lose. However you could
play it for your own reasons? (Or not play it for your own reasons - but
do you know what they are?) What if......life is not fair but
random....to say it should be fair or it shouldn't be based on money or
there shouldn't be suffering is usually the opinion of one bit of our
personality (the one that suffers).....this feels these things ought to
be a certain way....well they aren't! Life can be beatiful and
terrible...how could it be otherwise?....Without all the misery and
suffering how could anyone have the power to be charitable or brave or
good? the world would be grey and boring....it would be Laura Ashley
"nice"....yeeucck. (I realise this point is weakened by the fact it is
easy for me to say this, I'm not starving and live in the Western World.
However it still could be true?)

I can't deny what you say in one sense. However your standpoint is
unimportant it's your *understanding* of why you do this that matters.
If you were happy in your own terms living outside society and had
achieved satisfaction in this manner, I would be in awe. Rather you seem
to be hovering around money driven society, gazing half-longingly at
what you want but unprepared to pay the price. (of losing your self-
respect....ideals...soul...what, I wonder? )

Amongst esoteric teachings the materialism you speak of is mentioned as
maya devi - illusory energy - the devil. However this definition of
materialism encompasses far more than "my new Golf GTI" rather it
includes everything that affects us - emotions, sensation and thoughts.
This is why Monks, Yogi etc. retreat from the world completely.

Because it hints at a world beyond the material world you find so
unappealing? Death is awesome since unlike most things as we get older
it becomes more rather than less mysterious. It will be entered at some
point for sure, keep this in mind to ensure you learn all that was
possible and tried to *understand* all other of life's mysteries
*BEFORE* solving that one. Don't let the material world lull you - life
is full of mystery!  ;) ....Cheers,

Greg.


author: scott roberts

text:
Greg <[email]> wrote:

I really don't use money for anything.   I spend about $4,000 per
year.  Car, food, internet access, clothes, and books.  I have an
excess of cash.  But not enough to make babies.

If I was anymore daring and wild, I soon be dead.

This dance of atoms we call Scott follows the same rules as the dance
of atoms we call Greg.  The dance may be slightly differemt, but the
rules seems to remain the same. .

As a child, I remember the world as being extremily painful.

Not really, but other people see things that way.  I like to joke with
people sometimes:  "Yea, but what if you had to come back as me?"
with a big smile.  That usually gets a good laugh, a pat on the back,
a big smile, and the phrase  "No thanks."

My understanding changes from day-to-day.

This isn't entirely incorrect.

Life, maybe?

I've done that that.  It's not too bad.  Certainly peaceful.  Somewhat
boring.  A nice place to visit.

Maybe.

--------------
Scott Roberts
[email]
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/
(NDEs, arrowheads, air pollution modeling)


text:
Greg <[email]> wrote:

Anything's possible.

Exactly!  I was hoping that idea got across.

Again, that is what I had in mind.  I didn't mean to point my finger
at the parents as much as to the harmful beliefs that are required of
them by systematic memes such as religion and some companies.

This is true.  I was haphazard and wrong about some of the off-hand
introspection I was doing while I was writing.  I should say that I
desire to not be controlled as much as I wish to not control.
Possibly, I do not desire to control because I do not wish to be
controlled.  Or whatever.  I'm just guessing, you know.  Successful
honest introspection is probably very difficult.  We're getting into
areas I don't understand.

I didn't say society isn't fair to me.  I believe it is very fair.  I
do not wish to be controlled by it, therefore I do not reep the
rewards such as money or children.  Money is the method by which the
system controls us and the method by which we control others.  If the
control is a good thing, I can't say.  I just don't want to be too
much a part of it.  Obviously I deal with it enough to obtain food.
(I'm not using my own computer).

No.  They just want to control other people so that they can
perpetuate their genes in the form of children.

I do not hate anybody.  I love people.  I do not like some of the
ideas they hold in their brain.

No.  I don't believe in feeling sorry for people.  There's something
unartistic about that.  I don't believe in charity.  I may engage in
it sometimes, but I can't say that it is a good thing.  I believe
fairness is a good thing.  I do not believe sacrificing yourself for
others is a good thing, unless you have decided that that is what is
best for you.  If "good" people sacrificed themselves for pathetic
people all the time, then there would be no more good people left, and
plenty of pathetic people.  That's just how things work.  But I'm not
against sometimes helping people who need it.  I just don't like to
see good people get hurt.

Oh, God no!    What a thought!   That makes the mind do all sorts of
impossible contortions!

I've had plenty of money.  I've also given away plenty of money
because I couldn't deal with it.

Ummmm.   Weeeelllllllll.  You see, ummm, well, ummm.  Well, ummmm.
Let me put it this way:   People sometimes will not drive in a car
with me because I can't see boundaries.   Well, that's what they
THINK, anyway.   I wouldn't in general say that I am a safe kind of
guy.   I know this sounds contradicting considering the last post, but
.....  it's hard to explain (running out of my lunch break hour.)

Gotta stop here.  I'll be back to finish.
--------------
Scott Roberts
[email]
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/
(NDEs, arrowheads, air pollution modeling)


author: Bart Scott

subject: Re: Suicide anyone?  (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

text:
Piss, wind, and abomination!!!  The subject is suicide!  The original
appeal was how reports of negative NDEs may affect the percentages of
suicides in high schools and perhaps change the methods used by parents
to educate their children on self preservation by informing the future
parents that are now presently children of the experiences that medical
science has allowed some to have.  Some people have labelled it "New
Age" and disregard it as religeon.  That is bullshit because our
children *ARE* the New Age.

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Either keep to the subject or rename your
conversation.

Bart


author: [redacted]

subject: Paull Hammond states that Maneck never made "insulting comments"

text:
Here is the evidence to the contrary- dear Paul UK Hammond.

Maneck actually has used a few choice words in the past.

Hopefully, she does not use such profanities at Jackson State Univ.

Henry

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

[email]   Jun 21, 2005

Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
From: [email]
Subject: Re: Maneck describes Shirin incest as possible consensual
**sex**

[email] wrote:

Maneck wrote back:
"Read the entire thread, ***asshole*** and you might actually find out
what people are talking about.

I was answering Dermod's comment about a sexual assault case which *he*
suggested was consensual. I disagreed and said why."


subject: Re: Paull Hammond states that Maneck never made "insulting comments"

text:
[email] wrote:

Have you forgotten the context of my 'kind words' already?

You took Dermod's statement suggesting a homosexual assault was
consensual, put it in my mouth and then placed it under a big heading
saying that I stated that a girl had consented to incest with her
father!


text: My students at Jackson State don't deliberately twist my words.


text:
No, that is the appelation I applied to Rod some years ago and he has
made a federal case of it ever since. I called Henry an asshole
yesterday after he completely misqouted me.

It seems we are agreed on this subject. ;-}


text:
Thanks for your kind words- what is 'misqouted'?

You could use better language- per Baha'u'llah's Hidden Words?

Walk the walk -Susan.

Henry


text:
Here is Paull UK Hammond's previous response.

Henry
---------------------------------------

PaulHammond   Jun 23, 2005
From: "PaulHammond" <[email]> - Find messages by this
author
Subject: Re: Finally UHJ is covering its tracks by removing rights of
baha'is returning to Iran

[email] wrote:

Paul replied:
Are you confusing Susan with me?
Susan called you a jerk.

I said "Fuck you, asshole" yesterday, when I got fed up with
your continuing attempts to twist what I was saying, and
ignore the parts critical of yourself.

Fuck you, asshole!

Paul


author: ÆN

subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ý¯ï¿½Ú§Qï¿½Sï¿½pï¿½Hï¿½ï¿½ï¿½É³ï¿½~
ï¿½Ì¦hï¿½ï¿½ï¿½fï¿½Aï¿½Cï¿½pï¿½É¤@ï¿½Mï¿½ï¿½ï¿½|~

ï¿½hï¿½hï¿½Õ®ï¿½ wrote:


author: 層層白浪

subject: Re: 我訓左十三+個鐘

text:
嚙磐嚙踝蕭
嚙誹喉蕭搵嚙踝蕭z嚙踝蕭|嚙踝蕭4嚙緝嚙磐嚙踝蕭course
嚙誹前嚙踝蕭0嚙諉個第一嚙踝蕭sem嚙踝蕭嚙瞇嚙緻讀


author: barry (=¡ó¡ó=

subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Ú³ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ú¥Xï¿½~ tut ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ course ..
ï¿½Aï¿½aï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Lï¿½Ú´z course

ï¿½hï¿½hï¿½Õ®ï¿½ wrote:


subject: Re: 我訓左十三+個鐘

text:
嚙豎你tut 嚙衝二嚙踝蕭sem d course
嚙誹第一嚙踝蕭sem嚙瞋讀csc minor d course ar


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Sï¿½ï¿½s, ï¿½ï¿½hï¿½hï¿½vï¿½Ì¥ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½~~

"ï¿½pï¿½o" wrote:


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Úï¿½Y XO, ï¿½ÚµLï¿½vï¿½Ü¨ï¿½ ~~

ï¿½hï¿½hï¿½Õ®ï¿½ wrote:


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Ý±oï¿½ï¿½ï¿½nï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Uï¿½pï¿½oï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Gï¿½F ^ ^

Campos Szto wrote:


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Nï¿½J, ï¿½Nï¿½uï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Aï¿½ï¿½ï¿½...
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½uï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½Hï¿½Aï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ñ¶}ï¿½Jï¿½ï¿½~

ï¿½N wrote:


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Ú¾Úªkï¿½ï¿½,ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½pï¿½ï¿½É¤Hï¿½ï¿½Ü¤ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½,
ï¿½Nï¿½ï¿½ï¿½~ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½, ï¿½nï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Z

Fong Fu Yun wrote:


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Ý§ÚµLï¿½zï¿½Ñ¹ï¿½Aï¿½fï¿½ï¿½ï¿½~
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½|ï¿½Sï¿½Ý¤Ö¤kï¿½J~

"barry (=ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½=)" wrote:


author: ¤Ú§Q

subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½Nï¿½Jï¿½fï¿½á¤£ï¿½Nï¿½ï¿½ syss, ie or ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ß³ï¿½

"ï¿½pï¿½o" wrote:


subject: Re: §Ú°V¥ª¤Q¤T+ÓÄÁ

text:
ï¿½ï¿½nï¿½Nï¿½ï¿½lor~
ï¿½dï¿½ï¿½pï¿½Ýï¿½wï¿½ï¿½~

"ï¿½pï¿½o" wrote:


author: High Plains Drifter

subject: Information about this stupid Mail Bombing ...

text:
For contacting people about this stupid mail bombing -

  [email]
  [email]
  [email]
  [email]
  [email]

The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK4-DOM)
Information Technology Services Centre
Shatin, N.T.
Hong Kong HK

Domain Name: CUHK.EDU

Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Network Administrative Contact  (NA4625-ORG)  noc-
[email]
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Information Technology Services
Centre, CUHK
Shatin
HK
+852 2609 8801
Fax- +852 2603 5001

Technical Contact:
Network Technical Contact  (HC229-ORG)  [email]
The Chinese University of Hong
Kong Information Technology Services
+852 2609 8801
Fax- +852 2603 5001

----
Posted via http://www.etin.com - the FREE public USENET portal on the Web
Complete SEARCHING, BROWSING, and POSTING of text and BINARY messages!


author: Fong Fu Yun

subject: Re: Information about this stupid Mail Bombing ...

text:
Dear friends,
We've heard about that somebody report to the ITSC, CUHK that there're
some people abusing in this newsgroup.
The truth is that we're just chattering in Chinese, we think that's the use
of talk.rumors, although we make such a huge sum of news, that's
conversations.
And we believe that, everybody have their right to talk in this newsgroup,
no matter in English or Chinese, or other languages.
I feel sorry about that you can't read Chinese, so you can't read and join
our discussions.
But what I want to say is that, we are normal users, just like you.
Of course, we will follow any instructions given by the ITSC if they're
given legally.
I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Best wishes,
Fong Fu Yun.
A biochemistry undergrad, CUHK.

High Plains Drifter <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Campos Szto

text:
ï¿½å«§ï¿½X
ï¿½Hï¿½aï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ú»ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½, ï¿½Hï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ú¦aBOMBï¿½\ï¿½a
ï¿½Sï¿½ÎªÌ¥Hï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ú¦aï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½È¤ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½Ò¥Hï¿½}ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½o
ï¿½ï¿½Dï¿½ï¿½ï¿½dï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ITSCï¿½dï¿½ï¿½


author: L'inconnue

text:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½d ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Oï¿½S
( i meanï¿½Qï¿½Iï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½)

Campos Szto <[email]> wrote in message
news:9e9scm$r71$[email]...


text:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Ú¦aï¿½ï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½uï¿½YDï¿½Hï¿½Nï¿½ï¿½Æï¿½ï¿½Ñ§Ú°ê¦³ï¿½Æ¤dï¿½~ï¿½ï¿½vOï¿½Jï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½


text:
ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½Ú°ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½Ú°Ý¤ï¿½ï¿½eï¿½r
ï¿½gdï¿½Aï¿½Ý§r

Campos Szto <[email]> wrote in message
news:9e9t56$rph$[email]...


text:
ï¿½ï¿½nï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½|ï¿½Þ°_ï¿½Lï¿½×¬Jï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½....
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½czechï¿½[

ï¿½ï¿½d <[email]> wrote in message
news:9e9tdo$s36$[email]...


author: yan

text:
嚙踝蕭穻P嚙踝蕭嚙皚嚙緯嚙踝蕭n嚙瑾嚙踝蕭嚙箴嚙篇嚙盤嚙瞑嚙瘡嚙窮嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭...嚙踝蕭芼嚙踝蕭嚙誹地嚙踝蕭Y嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭,
嚙踝蕭嚙皚嚙踝蕭嚙緩嚙踝蕭嚙穀嚙窮嚙稼嚙皚...嚙踝蕭嚙盤嚙豌我地嚙踝蕭嚙諸寫嚙稷嚙踝蕭, 嚙課以嚙誹地嚙罵嚙諄歹蕭嚙踝蕭reply...

L'inconnue wrote:


text:
ï¿½ï¿½Yï¿½{ï¿½Aï¿½Ú¦aï¿½ï¿½Gï¿½gï¿½Yï¿½\ï¿½aï¿½Ü¦ï¿½ï¿½Hï¿½Yhackerï¿½Gï¿½gï¿½Kï¿½K
ï¿½Ú¥uï¿½Yï¿½ï¿½ï¿½\ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½hackerï¿½Iï¿½Ñ¡C
yan <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


text:
ï¿½Sï¿½Yï¿½Â°ï¿½  =p
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½n
ï¿½Ú¦aï¿½ï¿½owenï¿½Oï¿½ï¿½native speaker
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½nï¿½É¥ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½\ï¿½Ë¿ï¿½ï¿½\(ï¿½ï¿½, ï¿½lï¿½Nï¿½Hï¿½ï¿½

ï¿½ï¿½d <[email]> wrote in message
news:9e9tth$shc$[email]...


text:
ï¿½ï¿½nï¿½Ý°ï¿½
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Eï¿½Jï¿½Éï¿½ï¿½\ï¿½aï¿½@ï¿½wï¿½|ï¿½Xï¿½ï¿½ï¿½[

ï¿½ï¿½d <[email]> wrote in message
news:9e9ugf$t0c$[email]...


text:
ï¿½Yï¿½Ý¬[ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½Nï¿½ï¿½Aï¿½ï¿½grad oï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½É¦nï¿½Qï¿½ï¿½ï¿½\ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½Yï¿½Nï¿½oï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½ï¿½....

ï¿½ï¿½d <[email]> wrote in message
news:9e9uts$t5k$[email]...


author: Whining, Crying, Bawl

subject: Where Does the Soul Come From................

text:
............if not the pre-existent state?

(Now watch as Goo freaks out.)


author: Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass

subject: Re: Where Does the Soul Come From................

text:
On Sep 25, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza <[email]> wrote:

Unlike our pacifist, kind, caring, considerate, saint-like ~Jonnie~
Goo.

- Hide quoted text -


text:
On Sep 22, 9:12 pm, Larry Caldwell <[email]>
wrote:

LOL!!!

.........and have hundreds of thousands of experiments disproved the
existence of God, The Creator?


text:
On Sep 22, 9:28 pm, Dutch <[email]> wrote:

Then you are a soulless creature..........by your own admission.

 If


text:
On Sep 23, 1:51 pm, dh@. wrote:

Exactly!

What's the chances of two DIFFERENT people disagreeing with
themselves?


text:
On Sep 24, 7:49 am, Rudy Canoza <[email]> wrote:

A counterfeit of the real scrolls? I agree, yet enough of it is intact
to inspire.


author: Ron

text:
On Sep 26, 2:07 pm, dh@. wrote:

If Goo thinks the Bible is full of LIES, he should take to it like a
duck to water.........being that he is also full of LIES.

- Hide quoted text -


author: shrubkiller

text:
On Sep 26, 4:50 pm, Rudy Canoza also known as the soulless zombie Goo
lurched over to his computer and wiping the maggots that dribbled out
of his head from the keyboard managed over the course of 6 hours to
type the following crap:
<[email]> wrote:

The sudden flood of activity was several people punting YOUR ass
Goober.


text:
On Sep 21, 4:32 pm, Rudy Canoza <[email]> wrote:

Your very being, your essence apart from the physical.


text:
On Sep 22, 1:53 pm, Dutch <[email]> wrote:

So you are a soulless creature Goob?

- Hide quoted text -


text:
On Sep 22, 2:28 pm, Dutch <[email]> wrote:

I mean you are a "soulless creature".

- Hide quoted text -


author: Sgt. Giggles of the Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron

text:
On Sep 22, 3:48 pm, Larry Caldwell <[email]>
wrote:

Established by whom?

 Human consciousness requires a

Consciousness of the physical BRAIN you twat!

  When the old squash rots, that's the end of

However the everlasting eternal soul exists before, during, and after
the physical nightmare called "life".


author: Harry K

text:
On Sep 22, 3:00 pm, "Sgt. Giggles of the Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron"
<[email]> wrote:

Okaayyyy if you choose to believe in fables.

Harry K


text:
On Sep 23, 6:35 am, Jim <[email]> wrote:

Yes, the ones who expect to wake up on the other side.

Harry K


text:
On Sep 20, 12:15 pm, Rudy Canoza <[email]> wrote:

So you contend that you are a soulless creature?


author: Rudy Canoza

text:
pudgy queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, who is afraid of Rudy,
blabbered:

What soul?

[now watch the pudgy queer turn beet-red, stamp his
foot, splutter, shiver, shake and generally make an ass
of himself]


text:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:43:02 -0700, Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass <[email]> wrote:

    LOL! Since the opposite is true, it's at least nice that the
Goober just keeps on displaying himself as a moron. It would
probably be a lot less amusing if Goo didn't suck so bad at
what he keeps trying to do.


author: Dutch

text:
Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:

So are you, we are also both lacking betelgeusian moon fractals.


text:
fucking faggoty troll queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, who is
afraid of Rudy, senselessly blabbered:

Oh, fuck off, ronnnnnnie, you ugly little troll queer.
  Don't make us laugh, you snotty little douche.  You
are so far from being religiously inspired it isn't funny.


text:
pudgy queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, who is afraid of Rudy,
blabbered:

...GooFuckwit having another cracker shit hemorrhage.

Right.  I already said that.


text:
pudgy queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, who is afraid of Rudy,
blabbered:

Who says so?


text:
pudgy queer ronnnnnnie hamilton, who is afraid of Rudy,
blabbered:

What's a soul?


text:
Ron wrote:

That's not an explanation. If you mean literally then I agree,
since I don't believe there is any such thing as a "soul". If
you're just hurling insults then fuck you too, whoopdee doo.


author: Larry Caldwell

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] (Sgt. Giggles of the Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron) says...

We are far past whom.  The correct question is, "Established by what?"
The answer is, by hundreds of thousands of independent experiments.

At the time religions were made up, people did not have a clue about the
source of consciousness.  They thought the breath was the consciousness,
since it was invisible, and when somebody quit breathing they were dead.
The Hebrew word that is translated as "soul" is actually the Hebrew word
for breath.

There is no other kind of consciousness.

However, that continuation of the breath is not human, any more than
your urine is human after you take a piss.  Sure, the water goes on, but
it is not YOU.  When you drink water it doesn't matter that it has
cycled through millions of animal bodies.  The air is just air, and the
water is just water.  When you die, your consciousness dies, and that is
it.  No memory or awareness survives.


text:
In article <HoeJi.220683$fJ5.38467@pd7urf1no>, [email] (Dutch)
says...

That is pretty well established.  Human consciousness requires a
functioning human brain.  When the old squash rots, that's the end of
the line.  There is no survival of human consciousness after death.

Survival after death is a very attractive form of wishful thinking, but
it has no basis in reality.


text:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:37:16 -0700, Goo asked:

    People of course. So does the Bible. Check this out Goo:

Genesis 9
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.
I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from
each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of
his fellow man.

That suggests that animals have a soul too. If they do,
then not only do we provide them with lives on Earth, but
also life after this...that is unless one of the other two
possibilities is the case. You claim to cling to one, while
quite amusingly you insist on the other. That characteristic
is more evidence you are also the Booger, Goob, because
Boog is confused by himself in the same bewildered way.


text:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:12:01 -0700, Larry Caldwell <[email]> wrote:

    That is a better question.

    None of which could ever prove we don't have life beyond this, which
is why we'll never be able to say by "whom", because whom can't do it...
unless somehow we can learn to bring people back from the dead so
they can tell us there's nothing there. Actually from what I've heard though,
a lot of people who went that route seem to think there is.

    So what do you think is the counsciousness? Maybe the chemical reactions?
Or the electrical aspect of moving electrons? Or what?

    What's the Hebrew word for "soul"?

    Here's more from the Bible:

Is 26:19 - "their bodies will rise."
Eze 37:7 - "So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came
                  together, bone to bone.
             8 - I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them."
Da 12:2 - "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
           13 - "You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."
Hos 13:14 - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death."
Heb 11:35 - "Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released,
                    so that they might gain a better resurrection."
Mat 22:30 - "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
Mk 12:25 - "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
            26 - Now about the dead rising-- . . .
            27 - He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
Lk 20:27 - "Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question."
          35 - "But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry
                 nor be given in marriage,"
1Co 15:39 - "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
            40 - There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind,
                    and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another."
1Co 15:42 - "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable
             51 - Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-
             52 - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable,
                    and we will be changed"
1Co 15:42 - "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
             44 - it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
1Pe 3:18  - "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was
                    put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
           19 - through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
           20 - who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."
1Pe 4:6 - "gospel was preached even to those who are now dead,"
Rev 2:11 - "He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death."
Rev 20:5 - "(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years
                  were ended.) This is the first resurrection.
             6 - Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection.
                  The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests
                  of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."      (see Dan 12:2)

    That's one possibility. The other possibility is that: there is. The
first possibility is very easy. The other is very complex.

    That doesn't really matter though. If "you" were born something
else while still retaining your own sense of self, that is what would
be significant. Apart from how "we" could exist at all without a
body of some sort, how we could retain our own individuality and
sense of self is a significant question. There are people who believe
there is an afterlife, but that the idea of a creator is impossible. To
me that is about the most clueless of ways to believe, yet to them it
seems most likely.

    Maybe. Maybe not...


author: pearl

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

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research08.html

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html


author: Jim

text:
a lot of people live their lives making the choices they
make with the idea of there being no God.  there are many
who will be surprised.


text:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
as always and working overtime to be stupid, lied and
presented no challenge:

Morons.

A shabby counterfeit written by morons.


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:35:34 -0400, Jim <[email]> wrote:

    We can only know if he does exist. If not, no one can
ever know.


text:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 Goo wrote:

    Of all people who are clueless about that, you are the most
clueless, Goo.


text:
dh@. wrote:

your logic was interesting.  since I have yet to release
to the general population the J1 propulsion unit an no one
has to date ever seen a J1 propulsion unit then those
disavowing "the measure of faith" would deny the existence
of the J1 propulsion unit.

Rom 12:3  For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every
man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than
he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith.


text:
I always know that whenever I see a sudden flood of
activity to the newsgroup where I track this crap,
Fuckwit David Harrison - GOO - has just had another
shit hemorrhage.

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
and working overtime to be stupid, lied and presented
no challenge:

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Goo.


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

People would do better to stick to what they know.  If you just stick to
human scale knowledge and forget about being a god, you will suffer less
delusions.  The existence or nonexistence of gods is beyond the scope of
human experience, and in any case is none of our business.  However, the
basis of human consciousness has been clearly ascertained, and it is
clear that people don't go live in the sky after they die.  They are
just dead.


text:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:26:17 -0400, Jim <[email]> wrote:

    It's just the way things are.


text:
Larry Caldwell wrote:

throughout the history of mankind one groups says there is and
the other group says there is not.  then they fight.  in other
cases one group says there is and the second group says there
is and they fight because their belief in Him differs somehow.

I've often thought man has within him an inherent nature for
fighting.


text:
jimmie-fat-fuck ledford, angry drunken peg-leg of
Greater Wendell, NC, blabbered:

You're the proof.


author: Elmo

text:
Jim wrote:

More commonly, the fighting is between two groups each believing that it has the exclusive truth.  Each group indoctrinates its children to "know" something that the other side "knows" is false.  They end up fighting over something they never thought about.


text:
Elmo wrote:

jimmie-fat-fuck ledford will fight over anything.


author: Dermod Ryder

subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

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

This is great Doc!  Now everybody else thought you were stupid but I
said that you weren't and I was wrong!

Strange as it may seem to you the FBI has no jurisdiction where I
reside, where the alleged criminal act took place.  Your complaint
will therefore be fed by it to the local police who will have to
supply me and my legal advisers with a copy of your sworn statement
and, sorry, but the local police do not accept internet aliases as a
basis for any complaint.  They will require your true name otherwise
they cannot proceed; by and large the local police are a fine bunch of
lads and will be highly amused at your own inability to maintain your
so-called anonymity.  We all appreciate a joke here - this will go
down well at the annual Christmas party; it might even feature in the
cabaret.

Do impress on your local FBI the need to expedite this enquiry in
light of the dangers posed to the old grumpies in Haifa. (I'm c.c.ing
this to them BTW - on second thoughts I won't bother; they're all in
my fan club already and really look forward avidly to reading my
posts - don't like to boast but I hear there's a guy at Haifa tasked
with circulating them around the typing pool - Peter insists that's
how his secretary learned all of that bad language); I'll contact the
local police tomorrow and advise them your statement is on its way.
Once they receive it, I, of course, shall be able to announce and
confirm, in one stroke, your real identity.   Even better - you'll
have to come here to give evidence at the trial so I'll be able to
show you the sights, introduce you to the Kneebreakers Free Reformed
Temperance Lodge (cheapest and best beer in town) etc.

The FBI has no jurisdiction here and the Bahai World Centre has even
less.  BTW did you know that one of them is going to descend onto the
territory of the Reaper soon.  I intend to unstintingly proffer my
fullest support into giving him a warm Irish welcome that he won't
forget .....  ever!

Ah Doc!  I fear this time you have been too smucking fart fy bar!

other
reputable,
"team
this
of
news.interpacket.net!newsxfer.interpacket.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.e
du!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!213.1.113.27!not-fo
r-mail
message
You
worth
favours
for
favours
less
to
I'm
was,
Since
after
far
...
.....
me
the
watching
I
have


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

text:
Might I suggest he also include from Fred's list a certain elden and
night shadow who seem to think what they are doing is fine.  Or do he
believe he has to be an accessory to their views?

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:38:24 -0000, "Dermod Ryder"
<[email]> wrote:


author: Susan Maneck

subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

text:
Doc,

Tell me you didn't really send this?
Susan Maneck
Associate Professor of History
Jackson State University

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/


subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

text:
"Susan Maneck " <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
be a
hate
University

Doc,

Do tell her you did - for my sake if for none other!  I'm looking
forward so much to seeing you over here in Court.


author: Doctor Electron

subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

text:
Long, long ago in far off talk.religion.bahai, [email] (Susan
Maneck ) transmitted:

Of course, it was sent, my dear.  Call me "Mr. Good Citizen."  Would
you have done anything different if you yourself were becoming a
victim of stalking and explicit and veiled threats by apparently
unbalanced people already clearly supporting faith hate activities?  I
doubt you would have.  Maybe, on the other hand, you might want to
wait until the many "....." entries in the forward to the FBI were
filled in.  Not me.

An alternative theory, of course, is:  If a person has some reason to
suspect that a series of faith hate crimes might be in the offing, one
might wait to see if the first one occurs, even when the first one may
be against one's own person, and then act.  Me?  I'm not that person.
Rightly or wrongly, I consider myself in the "Good Citizen" category,
as, I believe, Shoghi Effendi wanted us to be.  Well, OK, I guess we
are supposed to strive to be outstanding citizens and even gain a
reputation of such in our communities.

If, on the other hand, you really wanted to make sure it was sent;
yes, it was.  And, if I may, I will add this.  My real name and alias
has been known to the FBI previously because now and then I have
reported data on apparent frauds or simple crime fighting schemes or
ideas re the internet. Nothing sensational, mind you.  As a result, I
can tell you I have never had an email to [email] ever
returned as "undeliverable."

globalservices1_at_yahoo.com using @ instead of _at_.

===PEP [Pretty Excellent Privacy] encrypted message===
The bytes above contain both the key and the message.


author: Paul Hammond

subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

text:
Dermod Ryder <[email]> wrote in message
news:a49pb1$1do4su$[email]...

Have you heard from the local Ulster boys that they received
their information about your serious stalking activities
post-haste from the offices of Agent Scully yet?

Send us a photograph when the case comes to court!

Paul


subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

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

LOL - are you talking about Dermod now?  And, can you substantiate
that "Faith Hate Activities" claim?  And, are you going to
answer my posts?

btw - are you filing charges against me for calling you a
"stupid bastard"?  You want Cambridgeshire or Scotland
Yard for the - the FBI doesn't come here, no matter how many
episodes of the X Files you have seen.

Huh?  You *don't* believe that a faith hate crime has occured
now, or do you?  Or are you scared of Dermod even though he
lives across the pond?  What was it you were saying again?

You're confusing us all - and if you *don't* think a crime
has been committed, why contact the Feds?

So, there *is* a postmaster at that address.  "Wow!" - are we
meant to be impressed that your guess at this address proved
correct?  Or are we just meant to look up the word "telnet"
in case you dazzle us with your amazing inability to keep
attributions straight?

Keep em coming, Dr Clown!

Paul


subject: Re: Kazemzadeh, Semple and al-Qaida

text:
"Paul Hammond" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Hi Paul,

No the lads haven't got the complaint yet from the FBI - I called
today to see if it had come.  In fact I turned myself in together with
all of the offending posts and almost got arrested for wasting police
time when they have other more important things to do.  When I tried
to assure them that the FBI was involved, matters got worse.  Then I
produced the posts and, to cut a long story short, after they had
stopped laughing we all went down to the pub and had a few jars.

Somebody commented about the bit where the Doc had said he had been in
prior contact with the FBI and none of his mail had been returned as
undeliverable, that they had guys like that on their books as well -
"time wasters" and "tyre kickers" he called them, the curse of every
police force throughout the world.  "If somebody farts in public," he
said, "these guys call the Environmental Protection Agency and kick up
one hell of a stink!"

Providing the FBI gets the finger out and sends the paperwork, they
can get it in Court before the summer recess.  Apparently the local
judges appreciate a laugh before they go on holiday and the police
always try to oblige with a particularly silly case.  So it looks like
it will be me this year.  Anyhow I won't need to send a photograph as
all of you guys will have to come to give evidence as will the Doc.  I
said he might want Police protection so they'll probably pick him up
from the airport in an armoured vehicle and keep him in the Police
Station for the duration - probably in the cells, which is the only
part of the station with a bed.  They are deep underground and bomb
proof (for obvious reasons).  You guys will probably stay in the local
Hilton which has a golf course attached!

As ever,

Dermod.


author: Semmy

subject: Re: Fur

text:
bacon wrote in message <[email]>...

t.p.a.

If that is true, why do different dictionaries sometimes have different
definitions for the same word?  Dictionaries are a useful guide as to the
proper definitions of certain words - i agree with that - but they never
contain every connotation that every word may have.

The dictionary definition of specific words for the use of nit-picking an
argument is irrelavent here.  I stand by that statement.

Similar to the way anti-ARs utilize the word "religion" to make animal
rights activists look like a bunch of weak minded zealots who have no way to
back up their thoughts or beliefs.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with
utilizing language to further an argument.  In fact, part of the art of
arguing requires manipulation of the language.  Any forensics instructor or
lawyer will tell you the same thing.

That is an opinion, and you are entitled to it.  I do not agree with it, but
I respect it.

Justification for an argument is no excuse to talk down to someone because
they dont think the same way you do.  Besides, I have never seen a
definitive win in an argument for either side of the animal rights issue.
It all comes down to what you believe, and therefore your justification is
just as strong as mine - which makes us one in the same.

it.

Dictionaries were originally created during the Middle Ages, when scholars
would create dictionaries which explained hard latin words in easier latin.
Near the end of the Middle Ages, Latin quickly lost ground to the Romantic
and the Germanic languages.  Dictionaries were then utilized to understand
latin manuscripts.  As the Germanic and Romantic languages became more and
more popular, people needed dictionaries in their own languages, to explain
hard words in simpler words.  Dictionaries were not meant to include every
word in any language, as that would be an impossible task.  In fact,
original dictionaries (that appeared around the 17th and 18th centuries)
only consisted of around 3,000-60,000 words...all of which were considered
"difficult" for everyday readers and speakers to understand.  It was not
until the early 19th century that Noah Webster published his dictionary in
the United States in which he wanted to set up a standard of good usage of
the english language for school children.  This was paraphrased from an
article in the World Book Encyclopedia (i would do further research, but i
don't have time to make it to the library today.)

Let's take a look at what you wrote..."It is to provide everyone with the
same definition and spelling of words so we can accurately communicate."
That is why you said that dictionaries are "created and why they are still
in use."

According to World Book, you are wrong.  There was accurate communication in
the world prior to the advent of dictionaries.  Spelling is another matter,
and I will agree that dictionaries are necessary to make sure that words are
spelled correctly.  Your reason, however, is not why dictionaries were
originally created.

one
"1.To
but
judicial
by

I left my definitions above so you could read them again.  "To kill
unlawfully" can easily be applied to the killing of animals.  It goes
against my personal laws, as well as the laws of the animal rights movement
(law, according to the American Heritage dictionary, can be defined as "a
code of ethics or behavior"), and is therefore "unlawful".  I believe that
one of the forums that this is posted to is called
"alt.animals.rights.promotion."  Perhaps you should create a newsgroup for
"talk.animals.rights.demotion" and then it would be reasonable to post such
a thing.  Perhaps "alt.animal-rights.semantics" would be another good
newsgroup to consider creating.  We have gone from discussing animal rights
to discussing the history of dictionaries (which you brought up) and the
semantics of the english language.  We have argued that different words can
have different connotations beyond their standard definition.  These
arguments have no place in either of the forums that they are posted to, in
my opinion.

against

I apologize.  I didn't mean to seem patronizing.  I was too tired to look
the word up, and I assumed that you would have a dictionary right next to
your computer (for the purpose of arguing against animal rights, no less)
and so you could look it up quicker that I could.  Allow me to further my
apologies by giving you the definition of the word now that I have a
dictionary directly in front of me -

connote - to suggest or imply in addition to literal meaning.

The noun version, of which, is connotation.

Under no circumstances have I tried to "force" anything on anyone.  I stated
my opinion that this forum was for discussion of animal rights and issues
concerning animal rights activists, not a discussion of the English language
and the proper use of it.  I also continually said "this is my opinion."
You can believe differently if you like - noone is forcing anything on you.
You should try to be less defensive, friend.

tactics

I will do the same when necessary.  The use and connotation of the word
"murder," however, has very little to do with the animal rights cause.  If
it will make you feel more comfortable I will discontinue using the word
"murder" in relation to the death of animals in this forum, but I can't make
everyone do that.  It won't change the fact that I still consider killing an
animal for no reason "murder," though.

non-human
animals

The ability to be murdered is a human-only trait then?  I have read several
sarcastic posts from anti-animal rights activists asking me why it is okay
for animals to "murder" other animals in the wild.  Is it okay when the
antis use the term in this way?  I have never seen a single complaint about
the term in those cases.

In any case, it would depend on your definition of the word "murder."

neighbor's

Then that would depend on your definition of the word "law."  See note
above.

The dictionary did not point out that the use of the word "murder" is not
intended to be used with animals...you and Jazmyn did, I believe.

Take care,

Semmy


author: bacon

subject: Re: Fur

text:
Semmy wrote:

The definitions are rarely different.  More elaborate in some than others, more
archaic uses shown in some, more historical references in some, the the actual
definitions are generally quite similar if worded somewhat differently.

Precisely.  To call the AR movement a religion is off the mark.  To call it's
adherents dogmatic is far more accurate.

I don't place much value in the words of either when it comes to exercising
proper principles.  In the case of the word "murder" it is more than
manipulation.  It is quite akin to radical feminists referring to consensual
heterosexual sex as "rape".

That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

Beautiful.  I agree whole heartedly.  The fact is that any discussion of animal
rights philosophy CANNOT end in a clear win for either side.  We cannot prove
morality.  It does indeed come down to what one feels or believes, and it does
my heart good to hear someone from an AR perspective say so rather than calling
me a liar, an inbred hick, an uneducated slob, a lardass, a bore, and far worse
for making the same observation myself.

These, although referred to as dictionaries were not what we commonly think of
as a dictionary.  These books were written for the purpose of translation and
such dictionaries are still common; Spanish/English for example.  Also, these
books were designed to provide for uniform translations.

An advancement in the attempt to provide a standard of understanding a
language.

I'm not aware of this story.  My understanding is that Webster considered
Johnson's dictionary (the standard of the time) to be seriously out of date,
especially in the rapidly changing fields of science, technology and politics.
He also presumed that the United States would naturally develop its own usage
of the English language.  "It is our business to find out what the english
language is, and not, how it might have been made" -Noah Webster.  His first
work defined about 75,000 terms in 1936 pages and was intended for usage by all
interested in a uniform understanding of the English language.

I think you've misread or misinterpreted.  Even in the world book description
it seems clear that the intent of a dictionary, whether it be a definitive
dictionary, translating dictionary, pronunciation dictionary or encyclopedic
dictionary is and always was to provide uniformity of understanding and usage
of a given language.

Granted, dictionaries are not intended to keep a language "pure".  Usage does
evolve and the job of lexicographers is to keep up with this.  The use of
murder to describe a very difficult situation, for example, is listed in some
dictionaries.  This developed out of the same sort of usage as the AR usage, an
attempt to shine the most negative possible light on a situation (i.e. this is
as bad as being unlawfully killed).  The problem with the AR usage is it tries
to change the essence of the term.  To all but a very small minority the act of
killing a human is FAR worse than the act of killing an animal, and killing an
animal is not a crime (in most cases).  The AR usage is intended to maximize
the negative impact of a statement by comparing the death of an animal with
that of a human.  If this were to become generally accepted usage, the impact
of the term would cease to exist by virtue of dilution of the term (over
time).  The term would become less useful (there was a murder today.... what
died and what killed it? Was it a crime?)  "That test was murder" would carry a
completely different connotation for most.

Indeed, were it not for the fact that the verb form of the word murder is
preceded by the noun form in which it is clearly pointed out that the word
refers to humans.  Converting to the verb form does not change the definition
of the word, It merely changes the usage; noun- the act of unlawfully killing a
*human being* (name for an action), verb- to kill unlawfully (the action
itself).

<snip>

Looks like disingenuous may fit nicely in your wardrobe as well.  I think your
actual intentions were clear enough.  Since we were speaking of dictionaries,
obviously I would be aware of the concept of consulting one should I run across
an unfamiliar term.

You're right.  It's difficult after 15 years of defending against attacks from
the AR movement I tend to get a little touchy at times.  Reading lie after lie
after lie about my business, receiving death threats, having windows smashed in
my wife's car with a threatening letter left behind, razor blade booby trapped
letters, seeing my home address on a web page along with bomb building
instructions and pages of articles about what worthless assholes people like me
are.  A local business of which I am part owner bombed resulting in a million
dollars in damage an only narrowly missing actually hurting someone and the
obvious perpetrators of this crime walking because of the dishonest testimonies
of their friends and the fact that the jury was hesitant to put these "kids"
away for the better part of their lives....  I tend to see the AR movement as
being filled with tyrants bent on hurting people and forcing everyone into
their little mold of what life oughtta be like.

You do what you feel is right.  Others will do what they feel is right.  I will
continue to piss and moan when the word appears in reference to animals.

These people are reflecting the AR usage of the term to try and make a point.
If humans killing animals is murder then animals killing animals is murder as
well....  If humans killing animals is morally wrong (murder) then animals
killing animals is morally wrong as well (murder).  You can see how ridiculous
this can get.  Newsflash... 500 million lifeforms were murdered today, details
at eleven.

unlawfully killing a HUMAN BEING by a HUMAN.... kinda sounds like this applies
to humans to me.  The mistake you are making is in taking the verb form
definition out of context, ignoring the noun form which precedes and clarifies
it.  The verb is the action which creates the noun.

Bacon


author: Jonathan Ball

subject: Re: Fur

text:
Semmy wrote:

We have gotten so far off track because of your deliberately slovenly use of
language.

You are trying to use the word "murder" so as to capture the moral weight of the
most narrow meaning of the word.  But at this stage, killing animals is not
unlawful, where "law" is presumed to mean the formal, explicit,
government-backed rules that regulate human behavior.  You advocate that killing
animals be treated, legally, in the same way as the unlawful killing of humans.
But it isn't.  You're trying to ride dishonestly on the emotional sense the word
"murder" has for people who _do_ choose their words more carefully and honestly.


author: John Mercer

subject: Re: Fur

text:
Semmy <[email]> wrote:

---snip---

You've got it backwards. First we show that you have no way to back up
your thoughts or beliefs, by showing that "AR" is based on outright
myths.

Then we show that you don't even follow the moral imperatives you wish
to impose on society.

Then we correctly classify "AR" as a nasty, hatemongering religion.

There is a great deal wrong with butchering the language to further your
religion.

Why do so many "ARAs" call what I do with calf serum (from the VEAL
industry) "non-animal"? There's nothing wrong with that?

Only if you don't have a logical case.

Lawyers often have to argue hopeless cases by sophistry. It's their job.

What's yours?

---snip---


subject: Re: Fur

text:
bacon wrote in message <[email]>...
more
actual

I will agree with that, but I still stand beside the idea that dictionaries
cannot possibly contain every connotation of every word in the English
language.  The fact that we are talking about the word "murder" is what is
significant here.  I wish I had more dictionaries at my house so I could
show you that not all dictionaries define "murder" as the killing of a human
being.  Although I am not positive of this, I would assume that there is a
dictionary somewhere that states murder is "a killing that takes place
unlawfully" for the noun version of the word.  If I ever find it or come
across it, I will definitely let you know.  In the meantime, the best I can
do is the verb form of the word out of the American Heritage dictionary.

it's

The same can be said of certain anti-animal rights activists, as well.  I
have to point out, however, that all people on either side of the argument
cannot be generalized together, because there are too many people that have
differing views on the same topic.

Im sorry, but I don't really understand what you are saying here.

I have to disagree with this.  The key word in the definition of rape is
"forcing," thereby implying "not consentual."  The key word in the
definition of "murder" would be "killing."  I would think that the word
"human" in the definition of "murder" would be similar to the word "sex" in
the definition of rape.

I would think that saying animals are "murdered" when they are killed, is
more akin to saying that the natural world is being "raped" when the
environment is being destroyed.  That is just my opinion, though.

but

No it is not a fact.  It is an opinion, because it can be argued, just like
we have been doing.

because
is
animal
prove
does
calling
worse

Thanks for the kind words.

were
for
scholars
latin.
of
and
these

Dictionaries, nontheless...It was from these dictionaries that modern
dictionaries evolved.  You made the claim that they were "created" with the
very specific intent of "[providing] everyone with the same definition and
spelling of words so we can accurately communicate."  I disagreed, and you
said that I could either do a little research or take your word for it.  I
chose to do a little research, and illustrated that what you said was not
completely true.

Romantic
understand
and
explain
every
considered

Perhaps, but clearly not the definitive reason that "dictionaries were
created and are still in use."

date,
politics.
usage
first
all

Like I said, I didn't have time to get to the library yesterday to do any
further reasearch, but I will sometime in the near future.

description
encyclopedic
usage

But it wasn't originally intended for that.  Original dictionaries were for
spelling.  Later dictionaries were for referencing the language.  Today,
dictionaries are still used for referencing a particular language.  My point
was that people could accurately communicate ideas prior to the advent of
the dictionary.  You implied that this was not true.

does

I realize this, and that is why I said that dictionaries could never be the
be-all end-all repositories of the english language like you made them out
to be.

some
usage, an
is
tries

I honestly believe that the very essence of the term would be in the
"killing" part of the definition.  ARAs are not trying to change that, at
least to the best of my knowledge.

an

I agree.

I agree with that, as well.

Possibly, but it is not a crime for the connotation of a word to change over
time.  It has happened so many times in the past.

carry a

I see your point and it is plausible, although far-fetched in terms of our
lifetime, I believe.  I really don't think changes in the connotation of a
word will have any long-term negative affects on society as a whole, though.

definition
killing a

I still disagree.  Why don't we agree that murder is acceptable "slang" when
referring to the killing of an animal, then.

your
dictionaries,
across

Sarcasm?  Perhaps... Patronizing?  No....

I wasn't talking "down" to you like you were originally...assuming that I
was too stupid to know that dictionaries were around for a reason.

from

That is understandable.

having windows smashed in
trapped
like me
million
testimonies
"kids"

That is deplorable, and I am sorry that these things have happened to you.

I understand why you believe that, but it is not true of everyone involved.

will

Fair enough...

point.
as
ridiculous
details

I still believe that murder is the act of killing something without
justification and with pre-meditation.  I don't believe killing a human in
self-defense is murder.  I don't believe that killing an animal in order to
survive and/or feed a starving family is murder.  I don't believe killing an
animal that is endangering your life is murder, and I don't consider killing
animals by accident murder.  I consider hunting for sport murder - whether
it be humans or animals.

applies
clarifies

The dictionary would not usually have a seperate definition for the verb and
the noun form if that was the case.  Take "connote" for example...there is
no seperate definition for the noun version which is "connotation."  I am no
expert on dictionaries, though, so I am sure that you will be able to point
out my error there as well.

Take care,

Semmy


subject: Re: Fur

text:
Semmy wrote:

<snip>

I guess I would liken it to using the mafia for models of business practice.
The methods may work, but that doesn't make them ethical.

Agreed.  However, both (sorry bobpa) sex and force are necessary, as both
(sorry bobpa) killing and humans are necessary for murder.  The feminists who
use the term "rape" in discussing consensual heterosexual sex are grasping for
the same effect as the AR's using "murder".

Yes.

Lol... Oh yes it is!

<snip>

Yes, I did.  And even in the case of translation this is true.  The earliest
dictionaries were created to provide uniformity in translation, which is
communication, is it not?  So could it not be said that the earliest
translating dictionaries were created so the translators could communicate the
former into the later with accuracy, or at least uniformity.  What we now
consider to be a dictionary evolved from this beginning, carrying the concept
from translation to difficult or obscure native terms, and eventually ending up
with the current form.  All forms serving to facilitate accurate communication
(admittedly, with spelling not showing up as concern in the earliest versions
since spelling was not a concern at the time in any case.)

Not that it was impossible, rather that mistakes were more likely.  Even today
ideas can easily be misinterpreted due to different understandings of the terms
used to convey the idea.  Dictionaries, from the beginning till the present
provided their users with a tool for uniform understanding, whether it be in
translating, or in communicating one's own thoughts in one's own language.

The very essence of the term is killing *humans*.   To remove this essence,
would be to remove the need for the term at all.  Rather than use the term to
simply refer to the act of humans killing humans, elaboration would be needed.
We already have the term "kill", to bastardize the term "murder" would be to
merely duplicate the word "kill".  There are very few terms which simply denote
the act of taking a life... "kill" is, in fact the only one I am aware of that
is not a slang term.  There are many elaborative words such as "slay",
"execute", "murder", "assassinate" which in a word, deliver a specific
elaboration of the word kill.

Imagine, also the huge number of legal documents which would be outdated by
accepting the diluted version of the term.  ... The punishment for the crime of
murder.....  Today the meaning of the word in this statement is clearly
understood.  Tomorrow....

It may not be a crime, but it is clearly undesirable for reasons previously
explained.

Nope.  Sorry.

Come on now.  Give it up.  You were patronizing me precisely the same as I did
you.

I must admit that I have a habit of talking down to many of my opponents here
on t.p.a.  I guess it's the price I must pay for being so damn much more
intelligent than they are....

I'm not whining here, nor taking it personally.  But it does tend to affect
one's attitude.

Ah, piss on it.  I think we've pretty well beat this one to death already...
:^)

Bacon


subject: Re: Fur

text:
bacon wrote in message <[email]>...

already...

Heh.  Agreed.  I found it a very interesting argument while it lasted, but
its clear we aren't really taking it anywhere.  I commend your argumenative
skills, and while i was tempted to reply to your "im more intelligent than
most people here" comment,  i found that I really couldn't disagree
considering some of the garbage I have seen thrown around here recently.
Heh heh heh...

Take it easy,

Semmy


author: Morton Davis

subject: Re: Can you name this country?  (A major military power)

text:
"R. David Steele" <[email]/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:[email]...
freedom,
your
countrymen."

Forwarded, archived and posdted on the ABCNews "WE Love Kerry" message
boards.

-*MORT*-


author: Jeffrey Turner

text:
Morton Davis wrote:

Did you notice how easily we defeated the Iraqi army without all that
superfluous hardware?

--Jeff


author: Christopher Morton

text:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 11:47:49 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
<[email]> wrote:

You mean like the M1 tank and the M2 fighting vehicle?

Oh, you were being sarcastic.

Nevermind....


author: Adam Albright

text:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:02:14 -0400, Christopher Morton <[email]>
wrote:

You were being the ass you always are. One senator does not make a
majority. I'm glad Kerry isn't a rubber-stamp for the Bushie junta ans
RummyDummy's latest lets waste more money scheme. While right wing
loons like you always try to spin some of his votes as against the
military, people with BRAINS see him being one of a few trying to cut
the excess over spending the military is infamous for.

Of course retards like Morton see nothing wrong with buying $500
toilet seats or wasting $100 million a pop to test some black hole
defense shield that can't work or investing 5 billion on some
aircraft, then a decade later canceling the project. As a taxpayer I
DO care.


text:
Christopher Morton wrote:

If we didn't have any of that hardware, we would have had to let the
inspectors finish their work and the whole fiasco could have been
avoided.  Just say No to preemptive war.

--Jeff


author: Dale

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

Yeah, one might accuse Dick Cheney of being anti-military when he wanted to
kill the V22 Osprey. Man, I would never put more than two people at a time
in a vehicle like that. It's designed to handle a single engine outage, but
still one rotor goes out and it's down, and down hard. Don't know if Kerry
ever voted against it.


text:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:08:14 -0500, Adam Albright <[email]> wrote:

Boy, you sure changed the subject fast....


author: Mike

subject: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/03kemp.html?hp

The New York Times
May 3, 2009
Jack Kemp, Star on Field and in Politics, Dies at 73
By ADAM CLYMER

Jack Kemp, the former football star turned congressman who with an
evangelistï¿½s fervor moved the Republican Party to a commitment to tax
cuts as the central focus of economic policy, died Saturday evening at
his home in Bethesda, Md. He was 73.

The cause was cancer, said his son Jimmy Kemp. Jack Kempï¿½s Washington
consulting and lobbying firm, Kemp Partners, announced in January that
he had cancer but did not disclose the type.

Mr. Kemp was secretary of housing and urban development under the first
President George Bush and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in
1996. But his greatest legacy may stem from his years as a congressman
from Buffalo, especially 1978, when his argument for sharp tax cuts to
promote economic growth became party policy, one that has endured to
this day.

Mr. Kemp, having embraced a supply-side economic theory, told the House
that year that the nation suffered under a ï¿½tax code that rewards
consumption, leisure, debt and borrowing, and punishes savings,
investment, work and production.ï¿½

Ronald Reagan adopted the issue as a central one in his 1980
presidential campaign, and in 1981 he won passage of a 23 percent cut
over three years. The legislation was known as Kemp-Roth, named for Mr.
Kemp and William V. Roth Jr., the Delaware Republican and his Senate
co-sponsor.

Mr. Kempï¿½s other great cause, in his 18 years in the House and for three
decades thereafter, was to get his party to seek more support from
blacks and other minorities.

ï¿½The party of Lincoln,ï¿½ he wrote after the 2008 election, ï¿½needs to
rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation,
liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.ï¿½

Mr. Kemp won his House seat in 1970 because of his celebrity as an
all-star quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, twice champions of the
American Football League. He connected his concern for minorities with
his respect for his black teammates, especially the linemen who had
protected him from pass rushers.

Vin Weber, a former congressman from Minnesota and a close friend, said
Mr. Kemp would often say, ï¿½I canï¿½t help but care about the rights of the
people I used to shower with.ï¿½

Mr. Kemp was an unlikely leader for a political cause based on a theory
of economics. He had majored in physical education while playing
football at Occidental College in Los Angeles. When he entered politics,
many Washington veterans dismissed him as a ï¿½dumb jock,ï¿½ and as a junior
House member in 1977, he did not even serve on the tax-writing Committee
on Ways and Means.

But though Mr. Kemp had not studied a lot at Occidental, he had been
making up for it for years. On long team flights, his reading habits ï¿½
Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley Jr., among others ï¿½ stood out. The wide
receiver Elbert Dubenion recalled this year, ï¿½He was reading these
political books, and we were reading the Katzenjammer Kids.ï¿½

Mr. Kemp first heard about supply-side theory, as advanced by Arthur B.
Laffer, a University of Southern California economist, in 1976. Soon he
immersed himself in the case for tax cuts, reading deeply from the works
of the Laffer camp as well as its critics. When he debated the subject
on the House floor, he cited studies on the money supply, the experience
of Britain and Sweden, and the impact of past tax cuts in the United States.

He persuaded his House colleagues to bring the idea to a vote in 1977
and three times more, in 1978. Each time they sought to reduce taxes
across the board, starting with the 70 percent marginal rate, which was
then imposed on the highest incomes. They lost each time ï¿½ once by only
five votes ï¿½ but they had an election issue.

Mr. Kemp had also convinced Bill Brock, chairman of the Republican
National Committee, that the issue was political gold. ï¿½He said, in
effect, we need to restore the essence of our party, which is growth,
which is jobs, which is creativity,ï¿½ Mr. Brock said in an interview this
year. ï¿½And the way to do that is to free people of the burden of
excessive taxes.ï¿½

Mr. Brock said the issue was central to the Republicansï¿½ gaining 15
seats in the House of Representatives and 3 in the Senate in the fall of
1978.

While some allies wanted him to seek the Republican nomination himself
in 1980, Mr. Kemp supported Reagan. In 1979 he organized a seminar in
Los Angeles to explain the intricacies of the policy to Reagan and his
campaign advisers. Reagan, who thought his own taxes as a movie actor
had been too high, seized on the idea as one that would appeal to
blue-collar voters.

After his election, Reagan called for a three-year, 27 percent tax
reduction, straight out of the Kemp-Roth bill, which had been introduced
earlier. The three-year, 23 percent reduction that the president
ultimately agreed to was supported by Mr. Kemp. Although its formal name
was the Economic Recovery Tax Act, it became known as the Kemp-Roth tax cut.

ï¿½Jack Kemp is the indispensable political leader of the modern
conservative economic revival,ï¿½ Edwin J. Feulner, president of the
Heritage Foundation, a conservative research institution in Washington,
said recently, adding, ï¿½Jackï¿½s role in developing and exploring the
potential of supply-side economics in the late 1970s laid the groundwork
for Reaganï¿½s economic program.ï¿½

Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said
of Mr. Kemp: ï¿½I think there is no doubt that he had a greater impact on
conservative and Republican economic philosophy than anybody else. More
than Laffer, more than Reagan.ï¿½ And the change he helped bring about was
not just in the partyï¿½s attitude toward taxes, Mr. Ornstein said;
Republicans, he said, were ï¿½no longer worshiping at the shrine of a
balanced budget, for better and for worse.ï¿½

John French Kemp Jr. was born in Los Angeles on July 13, 1935. He had
wanted to be a professional football player from the age of 6 but
recognized that he did not have the bulk to be recruited by a major
college team. Still, he wanted to join a football program that used a
professional system, so he chose Occidental, where he started at
quarterback.

It was also at Occidental that he met Joanne Main, who became his wife
of 50 years. She survives him, as do two sons, who also played
professional football, Jeff Kemp of Redmond, Wash., and Jimmy Kemp of
Washington; two daughters, Jennifer Kemp Andrews of Middleburg, Va., and
Judith Kemp of Potomac, Md.; and 17 grandchildren.

The Detroit Lions drafted Mr. Kemp in 1957 (as the 203rd pick), but he
did not make the team. He played briefly with the Pittsburgh Steelers
and was cut by the New York Giants and the Calgary Stampeders of the
Canadian Football League. Finally, with the founding of the American
Football League in 1960, he was chosen by the Los Angeles Chargers.

He went on to star as quarterback for the Chargers and was named to the
all-A.F.L. team. In 1962, Mr. Kemp injured his passing hand, and the
Chargers put him on waivers to open up his roster spot ï¿½ temporarily,
they hoped. But the Buffalo Bills claimed him for $100.

After his hand healed, his first game in Buffalo was against that yearï¿½s
league champions, the Dallas Texans. Mr. Kemp completed 21 of 35 passes
for 230 yards and two touchdowns as the Bills upset the Texans, 23-14.

ï¿½The fans stormed the field after the game and carried Kemp off on their
shoulders,ï¿½ Larry Felser, a sportswriter at the time for The Buffalo
Courier-Express, recalled earlier this year. ï¿½It was a scene from a bad
movie, but it happened.ï¿½

Mr. Kemp led the Bills to league championships over the Chargers in 1964
and 1965, when he was chosen as the leagueï¿½s most valuable player.

Billy Shaw, a Bills teammate and a member of the Hall of Fame, said in a
recent interview: ï¿½Jack Kemp is probably the most intelligent football
player I ever played with. Jack had what I consider better than average
ability or skills as a player, but because of his ability to use his
head and to make good decisions on the field, his results were probably
better than the talent that he had.ï¿½

Mr. Kemp was a founder and president of the A.F.L. Players Association.
In January 1965, he supported a boycott of an all-star game in New
Orleans by the leagueï¿½s black players after they had been barred from
nightclubs and cabs in the city. Mr. Kemp helped get the game moved to
Houston, where the black players participated.

His last season as a professional player, in 1969, was a losing one in
Buffalo, but he was named an all-star for the seventh time. It was also
the leagueï¿½s last season before merging with the National Football
League. Among A.F.L. quarterbacks, Mr. Kemp ranked first in number of
passes (3,055), completions (1,428) and passing yardage (21,130).

His transition to politics was smooth. As a popular football player he
had campaigned in New York for Nelson A. Rockefeller and in California
for Ronald Reagan in their gubernatorial races and for Richard M. Nixon
and Barry Goldwater in their presidential bids. And he was a name in
Buffalo. With a House seat open in the 1970 election, local Republicans
persuaded Mr. Kemp to campaign for it. He won with just 51.6 percent of
the vote, but in seven of his next eight races he cruised to victory
with at least 70 percent of the vote.

After helping the Reagan campaign in 1980, Mr. Kemp was elected chairman
of the House Republican Conference, the third-ranking leadership post.
In that role he sometimes clashed with Reagan, who was quicker to
compromise on taxes than Mr. Kemp. ï¿½Jack Kemp now knows Iï¿½m teed off
with him,ï¿½ Reagan wrote in his diary in 1982.

But the president hailed Mr. Kemp on his retirement from the House in
1988, writing in a letter, ï¿½We showed this town that ï¿½ if you want to
make the government move ï¿½ let a guy from Hollywood and a football
quarterback call the plays.ï¿½

Mr. Kemp had hoped to succeed Reagan, running earlier that year for the
Republican nomination and offering himself as the conservativesï¿½
alternative to Vice President George Bush and Senator Bob Dole of
Kansas, the minority leader. But Pat Robertson, the television
evangelist, took so much of the partyï¿½s conservative base, finishing
second to Mr. Dole in Iowa, that Mr. Kempï¿½s hopes deflated.

Mr. Kemp dropped out of the race in March 1988 and endorsed Mr. Bush,
clearly hoping for the vice-presidential nomination. That went instead
to Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana. But after his victory in the fall
elections, Mr. Bush did choose Mr. Kemp to take over the Department of
Housing and Urban Development in 1989.

His biggest task was cleaning up the corruption and favoritism that had
marked the housing department during the Reagan administration. Again he
was a bundle of energy. He met black leaders, visited homeless shelters
and presided over the destruction of failed housing projects like
Cabrini-Green in Chicago. He also offered proposals like tax preferences
for inner-city ï¿½enterprise zonesï¿½ and urged that public housing tenants
be enabled to buy their homes. Most of these ideas went nowhere. One
successful measure was the Affordable Housing Act, a block grant program
that has spent about $1.5 billion a year since 1992.

Mr. Kempï¿½s final turn on the national stage came as Mr. Doleï¿½s
vice-presidential candidate in 1996. It was a surprising choice. The two
men differed on economic policy: Mr. Dole advocated balanced budgets;
Mr. Kemp wanted tax cuts and did not worry about deficits. They also
disliked each other. In one exchange, in 1985, Mr. Dole said, ï¿½Kemp
wants a business deduction for hair spray.ï¿½ Mr. Kemp retorted: ï¿½In a
recent fire, Bob Doleï¿½s library burned down. Both books were lost. And
he hadnï¿½t even finished coloring one of them.ï¿½

But the choice of Mr. Kemp balanced the ticket. It pleased
conservatives, who were skeptical about Mr. Dole, and it added Mr.
Kempï¿½s East Coast and California ties to Mr. Doleï¿½s Midwestern support.
Plus, Mr. Kemp was 12 years younger than Mr. Dole, who was 73.

In the fall campaign, Mr. Kemp made a point of going to minority
neighborhoods that rarely saw Republicans. But those efforts appeared to
make little difference as President Bill Clinton won re-election
comfortably. The Dole-Kemp ticket won 12 percent of the black vote,
compared with 10 percent for the Bush-Quayle ticket in 1992.

After 1996, Mr. Kemp became involved with charitable and political
associations and headed Kemp Partners, a lobbying and consulting firm in
Washington. But he never ran for office again, ending a political career
that in many ways reflected an answer he had given in 1970, when asked
how his football experience qualified him for Congress.

ï¿½Pro football,ï¿½ he replied, ï¿½gave me a good sense of perspective to
enter politics: Iï¿½d already been booed, cheered, cut, sold, traded and
hung in effigy.ï¿½


subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mike wrote:
...

...

Too bad the current collection of isolationists, secessionists and
prejudiced, intolerant bible-thumping Jesus freaks (but I digress!) that
make up the new GOP abandoned those principles and outreach efforts to
non-white voters.


author: Mark T.B. Carroll

subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mike <[email]> writes:

They did, however, elect a black RNC chairman. Let's see where they take
their outreach roadshow. (Where are the current GOP on immigration
amnesty?)

Mark


author: Mr Potatohead

subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
Seems to me, BMO is a choichgoer too and to me, they are
ALL nuts... and thumpers by reasonable definition. Or
was that big guy in the robes a his choich ranting "God
damn America" NOT a choicher/thumper too.

Eeh, and Condoleeza is what? Er, who was that guy who
was Secretary of State before her, uh? So much for
prejudiced. Now... let's analyze secessionist and
isolationist...uh, oh! No! What the hell am I nuts?
Screw that!!!

Let's re-plonk the bastard before I get too far into it
all again.


subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mr Potatohead wrote:
That said, I liked Jack Kemp, voted for him, and would
go to his funeral and I still think Newt has something
to offer too.

Real Republicans are not as radically-right as Lord
Ignord Czar-Lenga the Ham-Fisted Bleater, aka MO,M
refers to them. It's just the ones making the noises
right now are the idiotic, greedy, and low-class ones.


subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mr Potatohead wrote:

Unfortunately for today's GOP, blacks are NOT as stupid as they think.

Black appointments do not necessarily result in more black votes.

"Reaching out" is much more than putting Michael Steele out in front
(and then spanking him every time he dares to think or speak for himself
- clearly he holds a *token* leadership position).

Reaching out must include polices that champion a _fair_ economy, one
that helps the lower and middle classes, too, not just the idle rich,
one where the rich pay their fair share and get off the backs of the
working men and women.

Jack Kemp understood that.

Oh, well, I guess it's head back in the sand time for Potatohead! Enjoy
the company of the big thinkers in Ostrich Club!


author: Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch

subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mr Potatohead <[email]> wrote:

I love Newt... The guy is a genius, and with his extensive knowledge of
history, weaves historical tales of how our founding fathers crafted the
constitution and government in a certain way, which over time bore the
Republican party.

Unfortunately, like Reagan and most "republicans" elected since my birth,
he long since abandoned those republican principals to support larger
government for his own ideals. At least, he did during his tenure as a
congressman and house leader. Although the "Contract with America" was a
brilliant idea, its too bad he didn't actually believe in it and follow
through.

I met Jack Kemp when I lived in NH and he was campaigning up there. Nice
guy. Like you I voted for him as well. I'm sorry to see he died.


subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mike wrote:

I see. You are the big thinker out here???
Just want to be sure what I'm missing.


author: O

subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
In article <Xns9C00ADD7D4CF6ExpyGuyATcoxnet@85.214.105.209>,
Nappy-Headed Cuddle-Bitch <[email]> wrote:

???  They passed it!  What else could they do?

-Owen


subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
Mr Potatohead wrote:

Big enough to not stick my fingers in my ears like the Ostrich Club.

You don't belong in the Ostrich Club, you're smarter than that, a free
thinker and have an open mind, unlike Ostrich #1 and #2 ... but really,
if you're going to threaten it every time we disagree, then just do it
and stop yapping about it.


author: P

subject: Re: RIP: Jack Kemp

text:
"Mr Potatohead" <[email]> wrote in message
news:gIrLl.7518$[email]...

It puts the lotion in the basket

Put the fucking lotion in the basket!

(above dialogue from the film "Forrest Lambs" <s>)


author: William Blake Jr.

subject: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
I feel bloodthirsty again. And this time it has nothing to do with me,
but with the utter idiocy and hideousness I see destroying the lives of
people in America.

Yesterday my friend, a Vietnamese-born tattooed
goth-artist-intellectual, told me that he is constitutionally incapable
of being honest with women. When prompted for what he meant, he said
that he is always approaching women with the intent to have sex with
them. He said that his interpersonal interest in women is always
corrupted by this sexual interest.

Needless to say, I had something to say on the subject. I told him that
the sexual and emotional interest are in no way in conflict with one
another, and that any relationship worthy of having involves both at
once. I told him that a good heart enhances sex appeal, and a body kept
up in good shape enhances emotional appeal, since it demonstrates
someone who is interested in being her best. I told him that the two
belong together, and to separate them results in malignancy, misery and
ultimately oppression.

I told him why the two belong together: Because if they are separate
from each other, people's sexual relationships become robbed of all
caring and warmth, and as such inevitably turn poisonous and
exploitative. At which point the person uses others - to whom she has
emotional connection - to whine and complain and then discard. Which is
a recipe for complete and needless misery, and one that the happiness
of humanity requires to be demolished.

I thought back upon rackets that exist in many cultures, and that
result in multi-generational perpetuation of misery that then is
maliciously portrayed as tradition and ethics. One of them, having
heard it articulated by many men from traditional cultures of either
white or black race, is this: THe man goes into a relationship
expecting his woman to cheat on him. Now what would a man do to a woman
whom he expects would turn against him? Coming from that consideration,
he completely controls her, attacks her, and utterly suffocates her,
until in many cases the woman has an affair simply in order to get a
breath of fresh air. At which point the man decides that he was right;
that women are evil; that they must be controlled; and that doing so is
godly and ethical. It is not godly or ethical. IT IS A RACKET.

We see similar things go on in clashes of civilization: People doing
horrible things to their enemy until the enemy responed in similarly
horrible ways - at which point they were portrayed as evil. They were
not evil; they were pushed to it.

And in what I described at the beginning of the post, I see a racket of
toxic psychology and toxic religion and toxic feminism.

I want my pint of blood.

Ilya SHambat.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
Used2be wrote:

"O rose, thou art sick:
The invisible worm
That flies in the night
In the howling storm
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy"

- William Blake.


author: Bibliophilia

subject: Re: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
Used2be wrote:

Heh heh.

See, the desire to act like a pig to women stems from being a pig,
generally.  Men who are basically good and kind are good and kind to
women, on the average.  Selfish shit-bags act like selfish shit-bags
toward women, because they are, in their hearts, selfish shit-bags.

And vice-versa.  Works for women, too.

Ilya, I see a theme with you, which is you have a big poetic notion
about how you'd like the universe to work, very much centered on how
you'd like women to work, and it keeps smacking painfully up against
human nature, which is various, variable, utterly non-uniform.

So, sure, you want women to all be one way, that way you fancy, and
being human beings, they fail to conform.

Not because of evil social systems, or feminism, or whatever the target
of the day is, but because people are little individuals, who are under
no natural constraint to adhere to your standards of elegance or order.
 Ah well.

Likewise, your goth friend tends to put getting laid over having a
relationship.  Maybe he's not old enough yet for a real relationship.
Maybe he's a shit-bag.  Who knows.  Some things have their time and you
can't rush them.

In re the problem of assuming women will cheat on you.  Maybe they
will, maybe they won't, depends on the person.  If the plan of brutal
authoritarian social systems is to keep women from cheating, they
aren't very sucessful.  If people wanna cheat ..... they will.


author: AlvinTChase

subject: Re: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
Used2be wrote:

http://www.pddoc.com/poems/auguries_of_innocence__william_blake.htm

                      -"alvintchase"


author: greggery peccary

subject: Re: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
"Used2be" <[email]> wrote in message
news:lZlUe.3$[email]...

a gnostic. sing along please:

...and did those feet in ancient times
*WHACK!*
walk upon england's mountains green?
*SMACK!*
and was the holy lamb of god
*THWACK!*
on england's pleasant pastures seen?
*CRACK!*
and did the countenance divine
*WHACK!*
shine forth upon a clouded hill?
*CRRRRACK!*
and was jerusalem builded here
*SCRTHWARCH!*
upon these dark satanic mills?

bring me my bow of burning gold
bring me my arrows of desire
bring me my spear
o clouds unfold
bring me my chariot of fire
i will not cease from mental fight
nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
til we have built jerusalem
in englan's green and pleasant land
*TTTHHHTTTHHHTTTHHH - T!*


author: "Nom dePlume"

subject: Re: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
"Used2be" <[email]> wrote in message
news:lZlUe.3$[email]...

William Blake was a famous writer. See
http://www.online-literature.com/blake/, where you can read this:

"William Blake (1757-1827) was a British poet, painter, visionary
mystic, and engraver, who illustrated and printed his own books. Blake
proclaimed the supremacy of the imagination over the rationalism and
materialism of the 18th- century. Misunderstanding shadowed his career
as a writer and artist and it was left to later generations to
recognize his importance."

You may have heard some of his more well-known works, such as "The
Tiger". (Note that you can sing the words to the tune of "Twinkle,
Twinkle, Little Star").

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?


subject: Re: Bloodthirsty. Again.

text:
Billy Blake's brother

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


author: RW

subject: Israelis Routinely Strip Search Women And Children

text:
Not Jewish women and children, mind you, but Moslem and Christian
women and children. Sounds like racism or apartheid, and that's what
former president Jimmy Carter, who has visited the area many times,
called it in a recent book. And racism is a form of pride which is a
sin according to the Torah or Bible. See Proverbs 16:18,19. "Pride
goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Better
it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the
spoil with the proud." But the rabbis' Talmud or commentary on the
Bible actually contradicts the Bible in numerous places. And this, the
Talmud and Kaballah, is what the rabbis teach rather than the Bible.

The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." But the rabbis have twisted the
10 commandments around too that these only apply to fellow Jews and
not to the goyim or gentiles, which the Talmud says are animals.
Therefore it's alright, I guess, for Israel to have killed more than
600 Palestinians last year while the Palestinians only killed 20 some
Israelis. They're only animals any way. Same as the Lebanese and
Iraqis. Israel destroyed Gaza's only electric power station, a
violation of international law. As far as I know that power plant
still isn't operating but no offer of help by Israel to rebuild it or
a word of protest from the Zionist controlled Bush administration.
Even if the gentiles were animals, and nowhere does the Bible say
that, the Bible still says even animals are to be treated humanely.
Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but
the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

That's why the rabbis hated Jesus Christ, because He told them they
were teaching the commandments of men (the Talmud and Kaballah) rather
than the Word of God or Bible. The Kaballah incidentally teaches that
astrology and the occult are great while Deuteronomy 18:9-14 teaches
that they are an abomination to God. Now we hear that Ehud Olmert
began planning his War On Lebanon four days after he assumed his
office and that Israel was violating Lebanese airspace on a daily
basis, a violation of international law, just before Hezbollah's
attack that killed a handful of Israeli soldiers. Then in response
Israel destroyed Lebanon's entire infrastructure, killing over 1,000
Lebanese people, a third of them children. See http://www.counterpunch.org/weir03152007.html


author: z

subject: Re: Israelis Routinely Strip Search Women And Children

text:
On Mar 19, 12:30 pm, "RW" <[email]> wrote:

And you provide your link for this, http://www.counterpunch.org/weir03152007.html,
which states:
"St. Louis resident Hedy Epstein, whose parents and extended family
perished in Nazi camps, and whose story is featured in the Academy
Award winning documentary "Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the
Kindertransport," reports being strip searched three years ago
following her participation in nonviolent protests in the West Bank. "

So; Hedy Epstein; Moslem, or Christian?
Look, just between us, you Nazis are never going to get anywhere until
you master the ability to read.


author: Harold Burton

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

Yeah, and?


text:
On Mar 19, 3:32 pm, "docremington" <[email]> wrote:

You do have to admire the logic, though. The Palestinians are killing
Israelis, for whatever reasons. The Israelis are strip searching women
and children claiming, rightly or wrongly, they are searching for
weapons and bombs. The conclusion this guy reaches from this; that the
Jews are ignoring the commandment against killing.


author: Scotius

text:
On 19 Mar 2007 09:30:29 -0700, "RW" <[email]> wrote:

	Perhaps if the PLO people would quit using their women and
children to carry bombs...


text:
On Mar 19, 12:30 pm, "RW" <[email]> wrote:

That is so unfair. You know that the women and children would NEVER be
carrying a weapon or bomb.


author: docremington

text:
RW wrote:

Yawn. The bible says "thou shalt not murder".

Counterpunch is full of driveling clowns.


author: Defendario

text:
Scotius wrote:

It is unusual for women to engage in martyrdom operations.

That simply doesn't happen.  Stop swallowing zioNist agitprop.


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

Nope.


author: Tang Huyen

subject: In the end, it's all up to what you want (was Re: Type)

text:
Noah Sombrero wrote:

Tara wrote:

<<Is that what it's all about?   Well, you won't
get a kick in the nuts unless you want that.
You won't go over the edge unless you are on
the edge looking for someone to encou[r]age you
to jump.   In the end, it's all up to what you want.>>

As I often say, people who want to break can't be
stopped, and people who don't want to break can't
be broken, surely not by mere words on the screen.
People who want to break know how to and do,
people who want to preserve themselves know how
to and do. For their own good, people who cannot
handle mere words on the screen should not be here.
But nobody can force anything on anybody else,
surely not by mere words on the screen. Everything
is free and everything is voluntary on there boards.
As Tara says:

<<In the end, it's all up to what you want.>>

Tang Huyen


author: Charles E Hardwidge

subject: Re: In the end, it's all up to what you want (was Re: Type)

text:
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well, I think you're wrong. You set some standard and play Mr Clean but
you're as stuck as anyone. These groups are rife with bad posting habits and
flamebait. Honestly, it's not worth the bother mentioning it because it
always gets ignored or people just run you around in circles.

On the other hand, people with less education and social skills in the
private groups I'm on do have a grip on the basics. They talk mostly shit
and can't stop personalising things so they fail in different ways. The
common point is both are ghetto environments.

Anyway, I'm hearing the shit end of town play off-the shelf music being
blown across by the wind. They think their pathetic carnival and push button
musicians are culture and society. Nobody not directly involved likes it and
the city council think they're being "sensitive".

Just an observation.


author: Hollywood Lee

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Yes, you make all of these boxed-up, hard-edged claims.  Others may see
other possibilities, both "on these boards" as you so quaintly phrase
it, to life off these boards.  Interesting, eh?


author: Julian

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Is there no alternative to those sterotypes?
Are there really only two, mutually exclusive,
types of people and circumstance?


text:
Hollywood Lee wrote:

Let me put another bald-faced question.
If you don't trust people to handle mere
words on the screen, which offer the
protection of asynchronicity, how are
you going to trust them with mental
culture?

Tang Huyen


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

Tangs wall of intellectual steel is buckling.

Pop goes the weasel.


author: Déjà Flu

text:
Julian wrote:

Hell yes! How else could you explain "nonduality"
to the average Tesco shopper in Chiangmai?


text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Who asked you to trust anyone?  This is just another of your many mental
categories you keep erecting "on these boards."  Funny, eh?


author: KittyP

text:
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Perhaps you have a different connotation of mental culture? My connotation
is to cleanse my mind of disturbances and negative mind rot,  while also
trying to cultivate the things which lead to higher wisdom and happiness
(with varying degree of success at this point). So trusting or not trusting
someone else with his/her personal mental culture doesn't seem like my
business. Although I'd like to say no one listens to people who say they are
enlightened and aren't - I would be wrong. A lot of people like to be led by
gurus. But I imagine they learn stuff doing that too. I guess when it comes
down to it - other people's beliefs are theirs and there isn't anything I
can or want to do to change them...which leads to not completely
understanding why anyone would care whether they can handle words on the
screen or their mental culture.
Kitty


text:
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

Naw - it takes a lot of work - "great doubt and
great determination". If you actually "get it",
there are no walls, no "setups", no sleight-of-hand
to be discovered or word games to be played. It's simple
and easy then, like old friends. In chinese it's
"lau plaing ew, olk olk chiew" (old friends shake hands).
"All good things to those who wait."


text:
"Dï¿½jï¿½ Flu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

let me know, i wanna be that
fly on the wall.


author: Don Harvey Ignacia del Encanto

text:
Hollywood Lee writes:

That ain't all he's erecting. And that's not his thumb you're
pulling, either.


author: Invisible Lurker

text:
KittyP said:

ACE - SET - MATCH

Very to the point Kitty. Tang is a self-appointed messiah.