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



"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "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....................


Toquemada and his minions come to mind for starters. See
<https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Torquemada.html>

Then there was the Thirty Years War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War>

In our time, we have the "troubles" in Northern Ireland
<http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/>

Then we have the abortion issue, with Chritian violence (with
the recent capture of Eric Rudolph)
<http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm>.

Seems we have a long history of torture, violence, and murder at the
hands of Christian fanatics (even though these people are not
representative of Christians in general in the 20th century).

If you guys are going to blame all Muslims for the crimes of a
handful of fanatics, you should similarly blame all Christians for
the crimes of their fanatics. Fair is fair. Of course, you can
admit that the problem is really the fanatics, and not disparage
decent people who practice either religion and who don't try to
force their beliefs on others.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On 08/04/2005 09:23 PM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "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....................



Michael Griffin
Reverend Paul Jennings Hill
John Salvi
Eric Robert Rudolph
Timothy McVeigh
Terry McNichols
James Charles Kopp
Wesley Swift
William Potter Gale
Robert Jay Mathews
Dennis McGiffen
Chevie Kehoe
Buford O. Furrow, Jr.
Clayton Waagner
Shelley Shannon
Marjorie Reed
Michael Griffin
John Brockhoeft

And so on and so forth ...



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Some of those were patriots and freedom fighters.


http://www.armyofgod.com/ChuckSpingola.html

<The federal department of justice's "war on terrorism" will not
only be waged against the Muslims nations but also Christian terrorists
in our homeland. One might ask what do the Muslims and Christians have
in common? The Holy Bible and Koran both condemn baby murder and
homosexuality as capital crimes. The radical elements of both
religions are willing to do more than talk to resist the societal
promotion of both these capital crimes. The foreign terrorists
(Muslim) resist the imposition of the United States/United Nations
charter, which promotes "population control" (abortion) and
"diversity" (homosexuality), while the Christian/domestic terrorist
simply resists the "law" of the land, which promotes and often
subsidizes abortion and homosexuality.>

Just a quick note on mission purpose from your employer. --D-y
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <[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.


Ah, yes - the logical fallacy of the false choice. "Either you're like
me, or you're a liberal." Uhh, Tom, I'm neither liberal nor
conservative. I judge each issue on it's merits, and make an
*informed* choice based on the evidence.

So, yet another strawman argument. I have never complained about
conservatives wishing to change things. The very fact that they wish
to make the clock run backward really isn't any kind of change - it's
just reactionary rightism.

> You know - all of the inventive fascism that you
> lefties can come up with.


Ah, yes - the ad hominem. When all else fails, call names. And I
think we're perilously close to Godwin here.


> >> 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.


Then you do not understand what a strawman argument is. Go look it up.

You are assigning me a belief or attitude that I do not have, and then
attack that assigned belief.

Classic strawman. So far your arguments are weak, and your logic
shaky. Come back when you actually have a point.

E.P.
 
I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:34:31 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:

>> 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.


Either you published the address in the form you claim leads to spam,
in which case it could have been subbed by someone and your assertion
remains unproven, or you didn't, in which case it was probably a
dictionary attack based on random names and your assertion remains
unproven.

It remains the fact that in some years of posting to various places
using various versions of my own name and my own domain name,
including a valid reply-to in the headers, I have never experienced
the problem you describe, nor seen any evidence of it actually
happening.

What I have seen is some evidence of unusually paranoid behaviour from
you. Occam's razor leads me to believe this is another example of
your known paranoia.

That is enough of this sterile argument as far as I'm concerned, this
thread now goes in the bitbucket.

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
 
I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:33:44 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:

>> 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.


That is one of the more flattering things they think of you, yes.

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
 
I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:51:41 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:

>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?


I love this! You are simultaneously claiming that spammers get your
name from sigs and domains, and that you did not give enough
information out for even an astute human to reassemble the address in
question! I think I'll let you keep on making my case for me :-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
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Either you published the address in the form you claim leads to spam,
> in which case it could have been subbed by someone and your assertion
> remains unproven, or you didn't, in which case it was probably a
> dictionary attack based on random names and your assertion remains
> unproven.


The email address I use for newsgroups recieved spam fairly soon after
it was first posted and the quantity has grown since. I don't bother
even looking at the account anymore.

> That is enough of this sterile argument as far as I'm concerned, this
> thread now goes in the bitbucket.


If only you could be believed.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> more stuff


Hey, at 10:29 you said you were done with this thread... but then
replied twice within 5 minutes....
 
Maggie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Maggie you have failed as a mother if you have not stressed that
> > marriage is a LIFETIME committment barring death or other circumstance.
> > So now you can count on a 50% chance your daughter will get divorced
> > because you did not stress that it is God who sanctioned marriage and
> > without Him as a partner the marriage is doomed

>
>
> I will be sure to pass on your information to my daughter. I have been
> married for 35 years. Barring death, I will most likely be in it for a
> lifetime. I will also tell my children that I have failed as a mother
> by raising them to be strong, independent, law abiding and educated
> members of society. HOW DARE I?? What a way to raise kids.
>
> Then I will tell them to stay married forever no matter what, or they
> will burn in hell. ARE YOU NUTS???
>
> Better to leave an unhappy marriage then stay there and show your
> children how miserable life can be. We are human, we are not "gods",
> we make mistakes. We do the best we can. Everyone goes into marriage
> thinking it will last forever, sh*t happens. I don't think people take
> their wedding vows planning their escape route. My daughter is in love
> and I believe in this union, but I know that if things change, she is
> independent enough to survive on her own. That makes me happy. I know
> she can take care of herself if she has to.
>
> I have no idea what I am posting to, and why I am discussing religion.
> Does this have anything to do with the original Lance marriage thing?
>
> Maggie


Furthmore, Maggie, you have failed as a mother in law if you didn't
advise your son in law that , in case the marriage sours, he has the
option of picking up 10 or 15 other wifes and possibly a few concubines
to take the edge off. That way he'd be biblically correct, and your
daughter would have help absorbing the stress. :)

- Al
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:34:31 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:
>
> >> 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.

>
> Either you published the address in the form you claim leads to spam,
> in which case it could have been subbed by someone and your assertion
> remains unproven, or you didn't, in which case it was probably a
> dictionary attack based on random names and your assertion remains
> unproven.


Can't you read? - I didn't give the address out to anyone. I set up
an account and then waited. My browser is configured to not send
email addresses as anonymous logins (e.g., for FTP), it was a second
email address, and my newsreader knows nothing about it. Is all
of the above clear enough for you to understand.

It was a dictionary attack, most likely based on randomly generating
short sequences of letters.


>
> It remains the fact that in some years of posting to various places
> using various versions of my own name and my own domain name,
> including a valid reply-to in the headers, I have never experienced
> the problem you describe, nor seen any evidence of it actually
> happening.


That isn't saying much, given your obviously poor abilities at
reasoning.


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

> I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:33:44 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:
>
> >> 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.

>
> That is one of the more flattering things they think of you, yes.


Guy, desparately trying to back up his friend Kunich, is now using
the royal "they". Hint for Guy - the king/queen uses the royal "we".
And my opinion of the lot of you (Guy, Kunich, and the rest of his
clique) is pretty low given their behavior.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] writes:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Some of those were patriots and freedom fighters.

>
> http://www.armyofgod.com/ChuckSpingola.html
>
> < ... The Holy Bible and Koran both condemn baby murder and
> homosexuality as capital crimes. ...>


I presume "dustoyevsky" might be quoting the web site, but in any
case I'll just comment on the sentence above ...

The Bible doesn't mention abortion. The Bible also does not declare
homosexuality to be a capital crime, although it does prohibit certain
specific sex acts between Jewish men, who thousands of years ago could
be sentenced to death for those sex acts but who would not have been
for their sexual orienation alone.

The Koran appears to be completely silent on both topics from what I
can tell by quickly scanning an on-line copy and trying a google
search. It is at <http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html>. If
something is in there (perhaps I need to use different keywords),
would someone mind pointing to the relevant section? You know,
provide a URL to a passage in the Koran showing the literal text in an
English translation?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> <[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.

>
> Ah, yes - the logical fallacy of the false choice. "Either you're like
> me, or you're a liberal." Uhh, Tom, I'm neither liberal nor
> conservative. I judge each issue on it's merits, and make an
> *informed* choice based on the evidence.


But I don't. Right - gotcha.

> So, yet another strawman argument. I have never complained about
> conservatives wishing to change things. The very fact that they wish
> to make the clock run backward really isn't any kind of change - it's
> just reactionary rightism.


There you go. "They want to change everything".
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some of those were patriots and freedom fighters


And the claim that Terry McNichols was a Christian in the fractured attempt
to blame his actions on Chritianity pretty much demonstrates the mind of
poor little Sheffield.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Bible also does not declare homosexuality to be a capital crime,
> although it does prohibit certain specific sex acts between Jewish men,
> who thousands of years ago could be sentenced to death for those
> sex acts but who would not have been for their sexual orienation alone.
>
> The Koran appears to be completely silent on both topics from what I
> can tell by quickly scanning an on-line copy and trying a google
> search. It is at <http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html>. If
> something is in there (perhaps I need to use different keywords),
> would someone mind pointing to the relevant section? You know,
> provide a URL to a passage in the Koran showing the literal text in an
> English translation?


Isn't it curious how educated about homosexuality that Bill is? Or perhaps
it isn't curious.
 
"tiggyboo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Furthmore, Maggie, you have failed as a mother in law if you didn't
> advise your son in law that , in case the marriage sours, he has the
> option of picking up 10 or 15 other wifes and possibly a few concubines
> to take the edge off. That way he'd be biblically correct, and your
> daughter would have help absorbing the stress. :)


I can plainly see that you're happily married.....
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Can't you read? - I didn't give the address out to anyone.

>
> I find your ignorance of spam to be rather humorous.


I find your ignorance of just about everything rather ridiculous
and you opinions generally worthless.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
13
Views
427
Road Cycling
Alex Rodriguez
A