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



On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:45:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> The "last" time? That would be as opposed historical war and violence
>> such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holocaust...
>>
>> Okay, how about:
>>
>> http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristiansPlotToRemakeAmerica.html
>>
>> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_gays.htm
>>
>> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm

>
>I don't have to append any comments beyond noting that this is where you
>gain your opinions.


Brilliant. If you don't like the facts, don't present a counter
argument, simply attack the source. What an original tactic.

To reiterate the point: there is no essential difference between a
Christian fanatic and any other, including Muslim.

Now that we have a "struggle against global extremism," maybe your
days are numbered. Hope springs eternal...
 
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:28:31 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Homosexual studies report that something like 90% of homosexuals had their
>first experience in their early teen years with an older and often very much
>older man. Pretending differently doesn't change those facts.


More brilliance. A Jesus Freak as spokesman for the gay community.

Uh, Tom, if 90% of homosexuals had their first experience with older
men, what percentage were lesbians? And why did they turn gay: they
got so turned off by the wrinkles and bad breath?

You are such a freaking tool.

Maybe your actual point refers to Catholic priests and alter boys.
Would make more statistical sense.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

>>Wasn't it supposed to be a war on WMD ? But the WMD weren't in Iraq so
>>that doesn't really fit....

>
> And gee, reading it makes it plain that you're misrepresenting the real
> facts.


That facts are there were no WMD. How is that a misrepresentation?

It was the White house that misrepsented the facts.
 
HISTORY TEST
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following multiple choice test. These are actual
events from history. They happened! Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c .Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and
40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

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

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were
kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown
up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and
thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and
a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was
murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first
time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Bill's
women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation (WWF)
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were
used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers
and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the
passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer
Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in
Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and
murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

Nope, ..I really don't see a pattern here to justify
profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never
offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing
us, airport security screeners will no longer be
allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct
random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids,
airline pilots with proper identification, secret
agents who are members of the President's security
detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and
Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss,
but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40
alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Come on people
wake up!!! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in
your address book. Our Country and our troops need our
support. P.S.... And guess who just bombed London?
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:45:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> The "last" time? That would be as opposed historical war and violence
>>> such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holocaust...
>>>
>>> Okay, how about:
>>>
>>> http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ChristiansPlotToRemakeAmerica.html
>>>
>>> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_gays.htm
>>>
>>> http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm

>>
>>I don't have to append any comments beyond noting that this is where you
>>gain your opinions.

>
> Brilliant. If you don't like the facts, don't present a counter
> argument, simply attack the source. What an original tactic.
>
> To reiterate the point: there is no essential difference between a
> Christian fanatic and any other, including Muslim.
>
> Now that we have a "struggle against global extremism," maybe your
> days are numbered. Hope springs eternal...


As I said, I only need to cite your sources and now your statements.

Most people will detect that you are whacked out from realizing that you are
comparing people who are trying to use political power to achieve their
moral aims with murdering terrorists who are willing to slaughter innocent
people with no real justification at all.

Soon they will throw a net over you.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Have fun - I've better things to do with my time.

>
> Yeah, like giving phoney advice on Sun Support newsgroups.
>


Kunich is back in form lying through his teeth. When challenged to
produce a URL to a message containing any "advice" at all regarding
computer support, he has never been able to produce a single one.
He trots this lie out every so often.

Let's just start listing Kunich's personal failings

1. Bigot (as evident by his recent rants on this
thread)

2. Liar (see above for just one example)

3. Girlfriend basher (arrested according to his own
account in a usenet message whose URL and message
ID I posted.)

and that is just for starters - the man is simply among
the lowest of the low.

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

> HISTORY TEST
> Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
> following multiple choice test. These are actual
> events from history. They happened! Do you remember?
>


> 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked
> and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and
> thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
> a. The Smurfs
> b. Davy Jones
> c. The Little Mermaid
> d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
> 17 and 40


I've snipped most of it. Most if not all of his examples, of course,
have nothing to do with Islam (I just skimmed through his list, so
I could have missed one or two exceptions).

For the Achille Lauro case, however, I might suggest renting or buying
a copy of the film version of John Adam's opera, _The Death of
Klinghoffer_. While it really isn't about politics (opera is better
at portraying human emotions than political arguments), it does give
an interesting perspective to how both sides in the dispute are
reacting to abuse, real or imagined as the case may be, with "positive
feedback" causing the situation to deterioriate and spin out of
control. Curiously, some Israelis and also some Palestinians wanted
the opera banned because it portrayed both sides as human, even when
behaving badly, and partisans on each side wanted the opposing side
demonized, not portrayed as people who were lashing out due to
themselves being abused in some way.

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

> "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 01:45:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > To reiterate the point: there is no essential difference between a
> > Christian fanatic and any other, including Muslim.
> >
> > Now that we have a "struggle against global extremism," maybe your
> > days are numbered. Hope springs eternal...

>
> As I said, I only need to cite your sources and now your statements.
>
> Most people will detect that you are whacked out from realizing that you are
> comparing people who are trying to use political power to achieve their
> moral aims with murdering terrorists who are willing to slaughter innocent
> people with no real justification at all.


> Soon they will throw a net over you.


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?

If Kunich claims to be a Christian, though, we can add one other fault
to his list - hypocrisy given his pechant for "bearing false witness".

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "StaceyJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>---snip---
>>
>>>FOFLMAO! That cracks me up every time. The very idea that spammers
>>>are going to scarf the contents of Usenet messages, pick out names
>>>form sigs, reassemble them with domain names from headers and send
>>>spam! Like there aren't several dozen easier ways to get addies
>>>together! Bill, your paranoia is hilarious :-D

>>
>>Um, this is actually fairly common practice (or was back in the day).
>>I've had several different e-mail addys (used ONLY for usenet posting)
>>'scarfed' in just this fashion over the years.

>
>
> No you didn't. Unless you crack your email program it appends your address
> onto outgoing messages. All spammers used to do was do a copy of the mail
> going though any particular server and that gave them the addresses. It is
> still done to this day. Every time I post to the newsgroup I get a large
> amount of junk email. Since I get all of my mail at Yahoo! Mail they skim
> off the worst of it.
>
> Like this is a really hard problem to take care of.
>


No offense, but if you don't know the difference between Mail and News,
maybe there are other things in that area where you can learn something new.

For the topic you guys talking about, refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_spam#Gathering_of_addresses
and
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,57132,00.html
 
[email protected] wrote:
> HISTORY TEST
> Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
> following multiple choice test. These are actual
> events from history. They happened! Do you remember?


<<snippety snip>>

1a, 2c, 3a,4b, 5a, 6c, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10b, 11c, 12b, 13a.

What do I win?

Robin.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> No you didn't. Unless you crack your email program it appends your address
> onto outgoing messages.


If you use an open source client you won't need to crack anything (anyway
your dumbassed US laws supposedly forbid you from cracking (reverse
engineering) programs don't they).
 
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.

W
 
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]?
 
"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
 
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
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
13
Views
427
Road Cycling
Alex Rodriguez
A