"Live Strong in Character - Don't Leave Your Family"



Chris Foster wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:p[email protected]:
>
>> gds wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> The "red" states have both people who live the correct Christian
>>>> life but also have a lot of "ahem" Springer guest types. So while
>>>> many people in a state may live according to the Word of our God
>>>> many in the same state are living the promiscuous "hit and run"
>>>> lifestyle and are in serial marriages and/or relationships. TX is
>>>> a prime example. Wonderful God-fearing folk as well as a lot of
>>>> critters
>>>
>>> How do you tell hem apart?

>>
>> If Buttpacker were truly God-fearing, then he wouldn't spew his
>> hate-filled, judgmental ****.
>>
>> Bill "there's gonna be hell to pay, one can only hope" S.
>>
>>
>>

>
> Butt Packer ???
>
> I think name calling falls under the category of 'hate-filled
>
> ', and you are being quite judgemental yourself sir


Read a little bit of "Jabario" (at "Back packer" dot com) and get back to
me. (Hint: I don't pretend to be a "man of God"; Butt-packer does and it's
vile. Clue: he calls non-believers "critters" -- a very MILD example.)
 
I submit that on or about Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:49:21 GMT, the person
known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>Kunich's infantile statements aside, I set up a separate email account
>with a short user name (more or less random letters) and within a few
>days started getting spam on it.


Amazing, isn't it? Nobody's ever bothered subscribing my address to
spam lists. Must be something you said - or perhaps the way you said
it...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "We"? As in the royal "We"? Were, or were not, the Inquisitors the
> > conservative Christians of their day?

>
> And what has that to do with anything?


Creative snipping does not help you make your point.

> You seem to be indicating that change
> for the sake of change is somehow good.


That's a strawman logical fallacy.

> Because some people avoid changes
> that are necessary doesn't mean that it is good.


Change happens. For good or ill. Conservatives such as yourself wish
to end change, and it's just not possible. Luckily, we've learned that
the universe does not revolve around a flat earth, that rye ergotism is
not a symptom of witchcraft, that slavery is immoral, mixed marriages
are not the downfall of the family, and that homosexuality is most
likely genetic in nature. Conservatives will always be rolled under by
the tide of change. Always.


> > Judgemental? If you say that modern conservative Christians are not
> > passing judgement, then you are either a liar or a fool.

>
> Explain to me these judgements you believe are being passed. If I understand
> you correctly you want the right to think whatever you like but refuse to
> honor that same right for others.


The strawman logical fallacy. If your arguments cannot stand on their
own without attributing false ones to me, then your position is very
weak.

Thinking is one thing. Taking action is another. IOW, it's acceptable
(in a legal sense) to be dismayed at minorities moving into the house
next door. It's when you take action to try and get them to move out -
that crosses the line.

> >> Isn't that the Gay Agenda?

> >
> > That is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
> >
> > *If* there was such a thing as a "gay agenda", it hardly seems likely
> > that they want to make everyone gay. Proseletyzing is the purview of
> > evangelicals, and while I understand that you view all the world
> > through that lense, I do not accept the premise that gay people wish to
> > convert straight folks. The same cannot be said for the wacko
> > Christian folks who think that prayer and behavior modification will
> > "cure" homosexuals somehow.

>
> Most homosexuals are completely normal in other respects. Most of them are
> also very conservative.


Prove it.

> But the public Gay groups are essentially 100% leftist-Liberals and indeed
> they most certainly DO have an agenda.


Nonsense.

> And they pour a great deal of money
> into politicians that support that agenda.


Which agenda is that? Equal treatment before the law? (Not religion,
but actual LAW.)

That's kinda Constitutional, dude.

> Or perhaps you missed the fact
> that they tried virtually every year for the last three decades to change
> the federal age to qualify as an adult to under 15?


"They"? As in whom?

> And for that matter homosexuals proseletyze as a matter of course.


More nonsense.

Without proof, you're just repeating the propaganda that your political
masters want you to believe.

I noticed you skipped the thought experiment. I guess asking a
conservative to have actual thought is too much.

E.P.
 
I submit that on or about Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:42:40 GMT, the person
known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>> Addresses in .sigs, yes, but not names in sigs without reference to
>> any domain name.


>That's not been my experience. As I said, you are unware of
>the term "dictionary attack".


And you are unaware of the usual sources of words for dictionary
attacks. The clue is in the word "dictionary" :)

Seriously, I've had to clean up the effects of clients who failed to
secure against dictionary attacks. We are talking here about tens of
thousands, sometimes millions of attempted usernames. Every
combination of firstname and last initial, for example. Or every
combination of the top thousand first names and the top thousand
surnames.

My money is on someone you ****** off deliberately signing you up :)

>> Bill is just paranoid. Ask him what helmet he wears and you'll find
>> out :)


>Guy is a moron with an axe to grind regarding helmets. His paranoia
>thing just shows his stupidity - the measures I take to limit spam
>are tuned to my particular situation.


Your particular situation being an imagined source of spam which is at
odds with reality - but then what's new :)

>Also, telling someone that personal information about my purchasing
>decisions is none of their business is not "paranoia". I'm under
>no obligation to provide such information to people I've never met.


LOL! And telling people that your particular helmet has certain
properties then refusing to say which model it is (perhaps because
some of those with whom you are arguing may well have the technical
resources to check that claim) is just evasion - but you /pretended/
it was paranoia, which was even funnier :-D

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On 3 Aug 2005 20:28:44 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
>a. Lost Norwegians
>b. Elvis
>c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
>d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
>17 and 40


This is an interesting one. This would be the party that we freed Iraq
for right? The Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq? Who are
now at the head of the government and likely to end up in complete
control.

So we fought a war to free Iraq from the horrible secular leader and
install an Islamic Republic. Mission Accomplished. Way to go.
 
Ernst Noch wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>>
>> The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1 minute,
>> okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well. BTW guess
>> what, your news reader puts your email address into every post,
>> without regards to any sig.
>>
>> W

>
>
> [email protected]?


Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.

Realisically, there are thousands of ways of getting email addresses,
including sites like 411.com. Which is why my email address published
on such sites is this one....

W
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Lance is also a devout atheist, he doesn't believe in any "creator"
> ****, he believes in himself


Dear UpALazloRiver;

Mr.Armstrong confides in you?

You make it sound like that's Bad;
jmt
 
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:17:01 -0500, jmt <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Lance is also a devout atheist, he doesn't believe in any "creator"
>> ****, he believes in himself

>
>Dear UpALazloRiver;
>
> Mr.Armstrong confides in you?
>
> You make it sound like that's Bad;
> jmt
>


I have no idea whether LA confides in lazlo31, but LA's beliefs are as lazlo31
says. At least that is what LA himself professes in his book /It's not about the
bike./ Other of his books may also cover his religious beliefs, but I cannot say
as I have not read any of them.

--
Steve Koterski
Atlanta, Georgia

"Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask
yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you and act accordingly."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
 
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>There are better solutions then being paranoid about your sig, for
> >>example I use a spam trap. Check out my email address, it's not my
> >>real email address. It's actually a spam trap, it gets about 50 a
> >>day, I use it when I publicly want to publish an address, and don't
> >>want my real address spammed. Email sent to the address gets sorted,
> >>if it's from a Yahoo List, it gets processed into a folder on my mail
> >>reader, everything else gets tossed into a bucket called Suspected
> >>Junk Mail, once a week I run junkmail controls over it, then look at
> >>the 2 or 3 that are left, 99% of the time I use those to update the
> >>filter.....

> > Have fun - I've better things to do with my time.
> >

>
> The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1 minute,
> okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well. BTW guess
> what, your news reader puts your email address into every post,
> without regards to any sig.


First of all, my newsreader (which is separate from my email client)
puts the address I tell it to into every post, and that address is by
design one that nobody uses. Second, why should I waste 45 minutes
of my time at home each year on administrivia that I don't need to
do, particularly when I've arranged things so that I don't get a lot
of legitimate email to begin with?

Aside from technical errors, your suggestion is simply a poor fit to
my personal situation.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> Ernst Noch wrote:
> > The Wogster wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1
> >> minute, okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well.
> >> BTW guess what, your news reader puts your email address into every
> >> post, without regards to any sig.
> >>
> >> W

> > [email protected]?

>
> Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
> abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.


In case you don't know, "nobody" is the name of a standard Unix
account that really means just that - something no real user makes
use of. It is used to set the user ID to a value that will not
match that of any legitimate user. Needless to say, the "nobody"
account on a Unix system does not get email because email is not
set up for it.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> I submit that on or about Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:49:21 GMT, the person
> known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
> bundle) to the following effect:
>
> >Kunich's infantile statements aside, I set up a separate email account
> >with a short user name (more or less random letters) and within a few
> >days started getting spam on it.

>
> Amazing, isn't it? Nobody's ever bothered subscribing my address to
> spam lists. Must be something you said - or perhaps the way you said
> it...


Amazing when I had not given the address out to anyone whatsoever?
I set it up and waited a few days to see what would happen.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> I submit that on or about Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:42:40 GMT, the person
> known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
> bundle) to the following effect:
>
> >> Addresses in .sigs, yes, but not names in sigs without reference to
> >> any domain name.

>
> >That's not been my experience. As I said, you are unware of
> >the term "dictionary attack".

>
> And you are unaware of the usual sources of words for dictionary
> attacks. The clue is in the word "dictionary" :)


You really don't understand, do you? Or are you just playing dumb
or being dishonest?

>
> My money is on someone you ****** off deliberately signing you up :)


How does some third party diliberately sign you up using an email
address that no one but you and your ISP know, particularly when the
observed behavior is dependent on the length of the user-name portion
of the email address?

> Your particular situation being an imagined source of spam which is at
> odds with reality - but then what's new :)


You inability to accept data that you do not agree with is well known,
as is your tendency to get in over your head.


> >Also, telling someone that personal information about my purchasing
> >decisions is none of their business is not "paranoia". I'm under
> >no obligation to provide such information to people I've never met.

>
> LOL! And telling people that your particular helmet has certain
> properties then refusing to say which model it is (perhaps because
> some of those with whom you are arguing may well have the technical
> resources to check that claim) is just evasion - but you /pretended/
> it was paranoia, which was even funnier :-D


Guy is an idiot - the discussions were about helmets in general, not
my helmet in particular.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Ernst Noch wrote:
>>
>>>The Wogster wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1
>>>>minute, okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well.
>>>>BTW guess what, your news reader puts your email address into every
>>>>post, without regards to any sig.
>>>>
>>>>W
>>>
>>>[email protected]?

>>
>>Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
>>abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.

>
>
> In case you don't know, "nobody" is the name of a standard Unix
> account that really means just that - something no real user makes
> use of. It is used to set the user ID to a value that will not
> match that of any legitimate user. Needless to say, the "nobody"
> account on a Unix system does not get email because email is not
> set up for it.
>


True, about nobody, however it's impossible to know, whether YOU know
that, or that nospam is a Unix machine or not. However it doesn't mean
that someone can't use it, just that traditionally it isn't used. Unix
has probably a dozen of those, often root doesn't receive mail either,
although sometimes it does, and then that gets tossed somewhere else.
One of my Linux setups had about 45 accounts, only 2 were capable of
receiving email.

Of course using such an address does not allow anyone to contact you
personally for any reason.....

W
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Change happens. For good or ill. Conservatives such as yourself wish
> to end change, and it's just not possible.


Gee, and yet Liberals such as yourself are always complaining that
Conservatives want to change everything. Lower taxes, less Big Brother Laws
and all that sort of thing. You know - all of the inventive fascism that you
lefties can come up with.

>> Explain to me these judgements you believe are being passed. If I
>> understand
>> you correctly you want the right to think whatever you like but refuse to
>> honor that same right for others.

>
> The strawman logical fallacy.


Sorry, not a strawman. The left wants to end the right of anyone with
religion to ever speak of it.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Uh huh. Last year you said you had to take off to build 20 - 30
> servers (I forget the exact number), so if you are doing that in
> addition to the mundane task of administering email, you must work at
> a relatively small company.


I wonder - do you even wonder for a second what people think of you? It
isn't something that you'd want to know about.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The fact is that Doug is right - he talked about "Christian fanatics",
> not Christians in general, and the worst of these fanatics are
> murderering terrorists - surely you don't think the ones who are in
> jail for bombing clinics or murdering physicians were wrongfully
> convicted. Or do you?


We have long lists of these murderous Christian fanatics don't we? Now who
were they again....................
 
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Ernst Noch wrote:
> >>
> >>>The Wogster wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1
> >>>>minute, okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well.
> >>>>BTW guess what, your news reader puts your email address into every
> >>>>post, without regards to any sig.
> >>>>
> >>>>W
> >>>
> >>>[email protected]?
> >>
> >>Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
> >>abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.

> > In case you don't know, "nobody" is the name of a standard Unix
> > account that really means just that - something no real user makes
> > use of. It is used to set the user ID to a value that will not
> > match that of any legitimate user. Needless to say, the "nobody"
> > account on a Unix system does not get email because email is not
> > set up for it.
> >

>
> True, about nobody, however it's impossible to know, whether YOU know
> that, or that nospam is a Unix machine or not.


There is (or was when I set it up) no machine named 'nospam.pacbell.net,
and phone companies have historically preferred Unix. For instance,
the web server I can put pages on is a Unix machine running Apache.


> However it doesn't mean that someone can't use it, just that
> traditionally it isn't used. Unix has probably a dozen of those,
> often root doesn't receive mail either, although sometimes it does,
> and then that gets tossed somewhere else. One of my Linux setups had
> about 45 accounts, only 2 were capable of receiving email.


It is an existing account.
>
> Of course using such an address does not allow anyone to contact you
> personally for any reason.....


Good. That's a small price to pay for reducing spam.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Uh huh. Last year you said you had to take off to build 20 - 30
> > servers (I forget the exact number), so if you are doing that in
> > addition to the mundane task of administering email, you must work at
> > a relatively small company.

>
> I wonder - do you even wonder for a second what people think of you? It
> isn't something that you'd want to know about.


Transference.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
13
Views
427
Road Cycling
Alex Rodriguez
A