Goodbye

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning "heretics?"
> Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft? Murdering people in
> the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year history of twisting the
> teachings of Jesus for political reasons and out of sheer perverse
> self-righteousness.

You seem to have more problems with horrible acts carried out hundreds if
not thousands of years ago than with current, present-day atrocities like
beheadings, homicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, rape rooms, torture
chambers, etc. If the actors are (or see themselves as) /oppressed/, that
makes it OK?

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press writes:

>>>> Hmm. I see a logical problem. If no one is to make charges
>>>> without proof, why would anyone investigate anything?

>>> Yes, that is how it is done.

>> Not in the world that I live in.

>>>> The way things generally go is this: There's an accusation of some
>>>> sort; people look for evidence for and against; the evidence is
>>>> evaluated; and in certain cases, the accusation is proven. Proof
>>>> does not generally come first.

>>> What you describe is persecution.

>> Oops, that's spelled "prosecution".

> Are you being coy, or do you disagree with my point of view?
> Gathering data on an individual with intent to prosecute _before_
> a crime is proven is persecution.

When a crime is suspected, evidence must be gathered before
prosecuting the case. Gathering personal data on a person beforehand
is what J. Edgar Hoover did. That is a different matter. I think the
nature of investigation is being skewed in this thread. I agree that
proof does not come first and that it must be established in court.
Evidence is not necessarily proof of guilt.

On the other hand when a highway patrol measures excess speed of a
driver, if not challenged in court, it is proof of breaking the speed
law.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson writes:

>> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning
>> "heretics?" Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft?
>> Murdering people in the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year
>> history of twisting the teachings of Jesus for political reasons
>> and out of sheer perverse self-righteousness.

> You seem to have more problems with horrible acts carried out
> hundreds if not thousands of years ago than with current,
> present-day atrocities like beheadings, homicide bombings, ethnic
> cleansing, rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. If the actors are (or
> see themselves as) /oppressed/, that makes it OK?

Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you need the more recent crimes
listed that are performed in the name of God.

http://tinyurl.com/2o9oju

I notice you claim not to be a member of a religion, but shy away from
declaring you are an atheist. Where do you stand.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Doug Taylor]

On 29 Apr 2007 21:08:40 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you need the more recent crimes
>listed that are performed in the name of God.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2o9oju

Indeed, read this book. And, Billie, you will find that Islam is
SLAMMED to its very foundation. Of course, so is Christianity.

Proving again to right wingers like Billie, that two wrongs don't make
a right. Have you ever noticed that whenever the Bush Administration
is criticized for corruption, incompetence, dishonesty, etc. some
idiot neo con always pops in with: "What about the Clinton
Administration?"

Logical fallacy 101.

Billie, don't you feel a bit silly implying that Christian insanity
(and there's PLENTY in modern times, such as killing abortion doctors)
is OK because Islam is "worse."

 

[A Muzi]

> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Although, I suppose historically Christians have been able somehow to
>> justify torture of their fellow humans, despite the fact that you
>> can't find evidence of Jesus teaching that in the New Testament.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning "heretics?"
> Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft? Murdering people in
> the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year history of twisting the
> teachings of Jesus for political reasons and out of sheer perverse
> self-righteousness.

I'm not one, but in the general scheme of religions, the periods you
cover for Christians are pretty short, considering.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Bill]

still me wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:18:07 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> By that logic, Obama's out too. Nobody is going to vote him in just
>> because of his newness, or blackness, or lack of experience.
>> If Hillary ran with Obama on the ticket as VP to gain some experience
>> then the Republicans would get totally steam rollered.
>> After 8 years of Bush I don't think any Republican has a chance.
>> Sorry.
>> Bill Baka
>
> You're missing my logic. The Dem's need to nominate at candidate who
> can WIN if they want to WIN. That's not a woman, a black, or a
> Northern white liberal.
>
> Check who the last couple Democratic Presidents were and get back to
> me.

We aren't ready for a black, even half black, that much is true.
We better never be ready for a Hispanic or we are doomed.
A woman will get in sooner or later, as will a half-black.
As far as the main stream Democrats go this season, there are none that
I would vote for. The only Republican I would vote for is Arnold, and he
can't run because he wasn't born here.
Typical politics. No really good choices.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I'm not prepared to say, as some do, that Bush Jr. is the worst
>> president the US has ever had. But that's only because I don't know
>> enough details about certain other presidents. He is certainly the
>> worst in my lifetime.
>
> You weren't alive during the Carter Years? Wow.

Leave it to Sore Knee to dissent.
Carter got screwed by Iran and Reagan's movie star image.
He really wasn't that bad.
I've been around since Truman and Bush Jr. is most assuredly the WORST
president in MY lifetime.
>
>> I only hope our country can someday recover from the damage he's
>> done. I expect it will take a good 50 years, if everything goes well.

In 50 years, China will be the global superpower and we will be a
footnote if we keep offshoring everything to China. They are getting
rich on our money.
Rather sorry state of affairs either way, and I can't blame China on Bush.
Buy cheap, not American.
We did this to ourselves.
Sorry, new sore topic.
Bill Baka
>
> If we up and leave Iraq now, you might well be right. (Except for who
> foisted the "damage", of course.)
>
>

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
>
>>> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning
>>> "heretics?" Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft?
>>> Murdering people in the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year
>>> history of twisting the teachings of Jesus for political reasons
>>> and out of sheer perverse self-righteousness.
>
>> You seem to have more problems with horrible acts carried out
>> hundreds if not thousands of years ago than with current,
>> present-day atrocities like beheadings, homicide bombings, ethnic
>> cleansing, rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. If the actors are (or
>> see themselves as) /oppressed/, that makes it OK?
>
> Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you need the more recent crimes
> listed that are performed in the name of God.

By Christians? Present-day? (WHat I wrote was a /reply/.)

> http://tinyurl.com/2o9oju
>
> I notice you claim not to be a member of a religion, but shy away from
> declaring you are an atheist. Where do you stand.

None of your God-damned business. (That's a /joke/, JB {@SA.O}.)

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> DI wrote:
>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> <snip> <-- smart move
>
>>>>> Bill Baka <-- hey, what's that doing there?
>
>
>>>> Get out of California every once in a while, you'll meet lots of
>>>> Republicans.
>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> Bill "Mr. Baka's in rare form (even for him) lately" S.
>
>
>> Sorni,
>> Are you coherent today?
>> That would be different.
>
> I don't blame you for snipping your own /incoherent/ comment from above,
> Bill.
>
> Maybe you're not completely stupid, after all! LOL
>
>
DI and Sore knee.
A match made in (probably not) heaven.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm going to miss Mark and his on topic bike posts, but not his
>>>> Republican hard line.
>>> Yes, God Forbid there are two sides of an argument presented. How
>>> dare he be conservative...and a church-goer...AND Republican?!? It's just
>>> /disgusting/!
>> I don't have any use for church, but that doesn't make me an atheist.
>> I just don't like to conform and I have better things to do.
>>>> To be a Republican these days is like wearing a
>>>> shirt labeled simply "Stupid".
>>> I heard that was your daily wardrobe. LOL
>> Name calling again, how typical of you.
>>> Bill "go join MENSA already, Bill" S.
>>>
>>>
>> Been there, didn't like the company. Fairly bright group but the
>> horrific bad puns drove me nuts.
>> At least they could spell and understand the occasional big words.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Tears...rolling...down...cheeks. TYVM!!! ROTFL
>
>
The biggest word I used was occasional. Was the definition that funny
when you looked it up?
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill "THE BRAIN" wrote:
>
>> He {Clinton} can get a daily B.J. and I wouldn't care as long as he
>> didn't mess things up.
>
> And when women sue him for sexual harassment, he can lie under oath and
> coerce a subordinate (the BJ-/er/) to commit perjury, too, and it's all no
> problem.
>
> His NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER can steal classified docs from the National
> Archives -- /hide and destroy them/ -- and no one (even the Bush Justice
> Dept. apparently) cares. (Or asks who else was in on it.)
>
> But let a special prosecutor fish for endless months and trip up one guy for
> not recalling who told him something that was /inconsequential anyway/, and
> it's JAIL TIME, buddy!
>
> No double standard here.
>
> Ho hum...
>
>
Sore Knee,
Nixon got caught.
Ford and Carter didn't.
Reagan (Iran-Contra?)got caught but forgot what for.
Bush Sr. had the CIA file it away somewhere.
Clinton was horny but not a fraggin queer.
Bush Jr....Too much **** to even start to post.
Do the math.
Carter may have been the most moral, even if Iran did undo him.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>> But that guy reinvented and marketed himself as a "cowboy" who
>>>> clears brush on a "ranch" in a state where motorists throw their
>>>> legally quaffed beer cans at cyclists (bringing this sorta back to
>>>> topic). He got so far into character he even adopted a redneck
>>>> accent, syntax, born again religion, and I.Q. , thereby giving him
>>>> appeal to a then Red State dominated electorate.
>>>> And the rest is history: sordid, despicable, embarrassing,
>>>> undeniable, on-the-books history.
>> Bill wrote:
>>> I don't think he ever had an I.Q. to begin with. If he is trying to
>>> pose as a Texas red neck then he is insulting both Texas and all red
>>> necks. The "Born again" religious fervor escapes me, like, what?,
>>> they are holier than thou, thee, and everyone else?
>>> The Dixie Chicks had it right when they said they were embarrassed
>>> for Texas.
>>> My sister did some research on the I.Q.'s of presidents and
>>> apparently junior is at the head of the Forrest Gump club.
>>> Would anybody here argue with an amendment to the Constitution that
>>> the absolute minimum I.Q. to hold any office would be 110 or so?
>>> Make that 130 for president.
>>> A dipstick can do far too much damage to the whole country, as we are
>>> seeing now.
>> I have no idea about 'IQ tests of Presidents' but he did get better
>> grades than Mr Gore. How did they measure Millard Fillmore by the way?
>
> Once again Bill believes a blog which in turn believed a hoax:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
>
> JFTR, Bush got better grades than /Kerry/ at Yale. (Hell, Gore flunked out
> of divinity school. LOL )
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
>
> (Note how gracious he was at the end, too.)
>
>
What blog? I've observed the Presidents since Ike, and I believe Kennedy
was the smartest, affairs not counting, and Bush is firmly at the bottom
of the I.Q. pile.
Bush #1 had Quayle (the grade school spelling expert).
Bush #2 has Cheney, and the thought of him running the country is even
scarier than Bush.
And of course we all know that Gore invented the Internet. <Snicker>
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

A Muzi wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Voting for the GWB the first time is bad, but not that bad. If
>> someone is really conservative, it could be a vote for the
>> conservative ideals.
>>
>> The only reasons to vote for him the second time were insanity,
>> ignorance (not that surprising given the state of mass media in the
>> US) or ego (not willing to admit a mistake).
>
> Even for you that's over the top. 50.9% (vs. 48.5%) of adult registered
> voter Americans who bothered to go to the polls insane? Ignorant?

Anyone who claims to be a "Born again" Christian already gets my vote
for insane, and probably ignorant as well. That was his largest voter
base and I think most of that was due to the "Right to Life" voters.
Force those mothers to give birth to unwanted children and you have the
right to a miserable life forced upon the children.
Some people get hung up on all the wrong stuff.
I was hoping for a miracle in 2000, that Bush and Cheney would meet
their end before being sworn in.
Too bad God wasn't paying attention to that election.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> McGovern/Shriver won one state. IIRC, Mondale/Ferraro won two. How
>>>> many would a Hillary/Obama ticket win? When you add those who "won't
>>>> vote for a woman" and those who "won't vote for a black" to those who
>>>> "won't vote for a liberal" and those who "only vote pro-life", you've
>>>> got a landslide coming down on yer head. I'm not saying I agree with
>>>> those sentiments, but this is still a sexist/racist society.
>
>> still me wrote:
>>> Exactly. Both un-electable together or apart, it doesn't matter. The
>>> dumbocrats might still be stupid enough to nominate them.
>
> Bill wrote:
>> I hope they do run together and if they lose to another nimrod
>> Republican then we will have proved our level of National stupidity.
>
> Hint: If you bother to vote some day, you'll notice that ballots do not
> have a listing for "none of the above" .

Like that will make a difference. I vote for the best candidate with the
best chance of actually winning. Too many people throw their vote away
by voting for Nader or some other independent without a chance.
What good does that do?
Vote, but do it within the lines of what has a chance of happening.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Interesting you say that. Until the Bush administration, the rural
> folks who drove mainly pickup trucks (city folk do that too now), had
> two rear license plate holders, one with their vehicle license, the
> other with the stars and bars (confederate states flag) that was
> a barely subtle sign of white elitism (bring back slavery).
>
> Today these trucks carry a US Flag in that space and a ribbon with
> some pro military slogan, often with a USMC insignia in the rear
> window. The politics of these folks hasn't changed but their
> insignias have. These same "rancher types" post anti-open space and
> parkland signs when such issues are on the ballot. They don't have
> much room for people who don't wear jeans and boots, and drive truck.
>
> These are the pro-Bush folks, identifiable at a distance in
> California. I suppose they are uncomfortable with the pragmatic
> terminator governor of our state who is from the Republican party
> although it isn't obvious.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Well put, Jobst.
I may be a Democrat but I did vote for Arnold since he actually seems to
be much more intelligent than Bush, but also as middle of the road as he
can be, putting distance between himself and that political poison, Bush.
There was also the fact that the Democratic candidate was Hispanic and
that would have spelled doom for us white-Anglo types. The only pro-Bush
types seem to be the farmers (subsidies?) and the military supported
crowd. How Republican would they be if they had to go to Iraq?
So far this century is turning out to be a side show in D.C.
Bill Baka

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson writes:

>>>> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning
>>>> "heretics?" Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft?
>>>> Murdering people in the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year
>>>> history of twisting the teachings of Jesus for political reasons
>>>> and out of sheer perverse self-righteousness.

>>> You seem to have more problems with horrible acts carried out
>>> hundreds if not thousands of years ago than with current,
>>> present-day atrocities like beheadings, homicide bombings, ethnic
>>> cleansing, rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. If the actors are (or
>>> see themselves as) /oppressed/, that makes it OK?

>> Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you need the more recent crimes
>> listed that are performed in the name of God.

> By Christians? Present-day? (WHat I wrote was a /reply/.)

http://tinyurl.com/2o9oju

>> I notice you claim not to be a member of a religion, but shy away
>> from declaring you are an atheist. Where do you stand.

> None of your God-damned business. (That's a /joke/, JB {@SA.O}.)

If you can't write jokes don't try converting rude rejoinders by
appending punctuation symbols (aka smileys). It's worse than those
posts with four letter name calling and statement of fact followed by
"I suppose." at the very end. You don't fool anyone.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Bill]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
>
>>> You mean, like, the Inquisition? The Crusades? Burning
>>> "heretics?" Tormenting people falsely accused of witchcraft?
>>> Murdering people in the name of God? Christianity has a 2000 year
>>> history of twisting the teachings of Jesus for political reasons
>>> and out of sheer perverse self-righteousness.
>
>> You seem to have more problems with horrible acts carried out
>> hundreds if not thousands of years ago than with current,
>> present-day atrocities like beheadings, homicide bombings, ethnic
>> cleansing, rape rooms, torture chambers, etc. If the actors are (or
>> see themselves as) /oppressed/, that makes it OK?
>
> Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you need the more recent crimes
> listed that are performed in the name of God.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2o9oju
>
> I notice you claim not to be a member of a religion, but shy away from
> declaring you are an atheist. Where do you stand.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Geesh,
More harm and war crimes and outright torture and injustice can be
attributed to religion than anything else in all of history. The crimes
committed by the catholic church make ****** and Stalin look like fairly
decent people. As long as we have religious wars and killing then
religion is more of a force for evil than for good.
Hence, I will state, before anyone can accuse me of something, that I am
100% Atheist. No caring and loving 'God' would tolerate all this **** in
his/her name.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bill wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> DI wrote:
>>>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> <snip> <-- smart move
>>
>>>>>> Bill Baka <-- hey, what's that doing there?
>>
>>
>>>>> Get out of California every once in a while, you'll meet lots of
>>>>> Republicans.
>>
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> Bill "Mr. Baka's in rare form (even for him) lately" S.
>>
>>
>>> Sorni,
>>> Are you coherent today?
>>> That would be different.
>>
>> I don't blame you for snipping your own /incoherent/ comment from
>> above, Bill.
>>
>> Maybe you're not completely stupid, after all! LOL
>>
>>
> DI and Sore knee.
> A match made in (probably not) heaven.

Yes, Bill. ANYONE who doesn't tow the party line of Liberalism must be
stupid.

Take that online IQ test yet? LOL

 

[Bill]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
>> But the next time someone posts a RIDE REPORT in rec.bicycles.misc,
>> by all means be sure to snidely flame them for not putting it in
>> rec.rides.
>
> Maybe you can quote that posting to show that I flamed the writer of
> that thread and that it wasn't eons ago. The exchanges here have been
> full of rude name calling and insinuations, the likes of which never
> appeared in anything I wrote. As I recall I asked the writer to also
> post his ride report in that newsgroup (rec.bicycles.rides) so those
> readers who are interested in ride reports won't miss it. I see no
> flames in that request that seems to have occurred years ago... and
> elephants never forget!
>
> Jobst Brandt

Whatever the issues about which group to post rides in, this group is
called 'misc' and I can truly say that this is the most 'misc' group I
have ever found. I think I know why Mark quit this group....time.
Just keeping up with this one thread takes 2 hours out of my day. 2
hours that I could have been riding or even vegging out watching the
news. Even the news gets ruined for me when Bush's dumb mug makes it on
screen. Poster boy for rising way beyond one's level of incompetence.
GWB.
Bill Baka

 

[Bill]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Apr 27, 2:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> What IS unpatriotic is making charges (Bush lied, Bush targets
>>> civilians for assasination, soldiers killed civilians /in cold
>>> blood/ before charges were even filed) without proof.
>> Would a bullet in YOUR back be proof enough?
>
> What part of "targets" (specifically orders) do you not understand, Mensa?
>
> Rest snipped; you're nuts.
>
> Hey Bill, go to Tickle dot com and take their IQ test. Make your score
> public.
>
> Just an idea...
>
>
I have taken some on-line tests and my lowest was 135 (hung over and
multi-tasking talking to the boss) and the highest was 160 (test limit).
So I should take another totally inconclusive on-line test for you?
Yeah, right.
Bill (nothing to prove) Baka