Re: Rampant Hate and Lies

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by rodney_victor, Oct 31, 2003.

  1. If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    vaccinations.

    Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    come to the opposite conclusion. She is perfectly entitled to her
    opinion that it's not in the best interests of young children to have
    the blood and pus of sick horses, along with some mercury and various
    other chemicals, pumped into their bloodstreams.

    I have a great deal of admiration for Jan, who is subjected to the
    most terrible abuse in this newsgroup day after day for standing up
    for her convictions in the face of the almost overwhelming power of
    the medical establishment. I'm sure that her dedication has helped
    many people to find simple, natural remedies for their complaints,
    rather than the drugs that are pushed by the licenced drug-pushers.

    Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.

    I have a couple of verses to encourage you:

    "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith,
    who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,
    and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who
    endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow
    weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)
     
    Tags:


  2. Bullshit.

    She has considered nothing.

    She hates children, as she opposes everything that is good for them.

    "rodney_victor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    > hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    > posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    > conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    > the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    > love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    > vaccinations.
    >
    > Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    > good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    > come to the opposite conclusion. She is perfectly entitled to her
    > opinion that it's not in the best interests of young children to have
    > the blood and pus of sick horses, along with some mercury and various
    > other chemicals, pumped into their bloodstreams.
    >
    > I have a great deal of admiration for Jan, who is subjected to the
    > most terrible abuse in this newsgroup day after day for standing up
    > for her convictions in the face of the almost overwhelming power of
    > the medical establishment. I'm sure that her dedication has helped
    > many people to find simple, natural remedies for their complaints,
    > rather than the drugs that are pushed by the licenced drug-pushers.
    >
    > Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    > and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    > effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.
    >
    > I have a couple of verses to encourage you:
    >
    > "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith,
    > who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,
    > and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who
    > endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow
    > weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)
     
  3. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    rodney_victor <[email protected]> wrote:
    >If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    >hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    >posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    >conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    >the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    >love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    >vaccinations.


    Why doesn't she want to save them from the dangers of vaccine-
    preventable diseases? The odds of harm from the disease (with
    the possible exception of chicken pox) are much higher than the
    odds of harm from the vaccine.

    >Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    >good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    >come to the opposite conclusion.


    It's highly questionable that she has done anything of the sort. She
    shows no evidence of it. She shows a lot of evidence of knee-jerk
    reaction to anything in conventional medicine -- she labels it "bad."
    This is not a sign of "considering the evidence." Quite the contrary.

    >She is perfectly entitled to her opinion that it's not in the best
    >interests of young children to have the blood and pus of sick horses,
    >along with some mercury and various other chemicals, pumped into
    >their bloodstreams.


    Except that's not what's in most vaccines, especially the mercury.
    So such an objection is meaningless.

    >I have a great deal of admiration for Jan, who is subjected to the
    >most terrible abuse in this newsgroup day after day for standing up
    >for her convictions in the face of the almost overwhelming power of
    >the medical establishment.


    Many of the people who are critical of Jan are not part of the
    "medical establishment." And sticking by one's guns in a wrong-
    headed attitude is not a virtue. Sincerity is highly overrated.

    >I'm sure that her dedication has helped many people to find simple,
    >natural remedies for their complaints, rather than the drugs that are
    >pushed by the licenced drug-pushers.


    I doubt that she has done anything of the sort, since most of her
    tirades are not directed towards helping others find salvation through
    "natural" cures (a questionable term). Most of them are about the
    evils of mercury and the awfulness of conventional medicine.

    >Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.


    Who says she's standing for the truth? Just because you think God is
    on your side doesn't mean anything. If both teams playing in a
    football game pray before the game, only one of them is still going to
    win. Does God hate the losing team?

    >Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you
    >will not grow weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)


    Irrelevant. She's not trying to save our souls, she's trying to abuse
    us (and succeeding).

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:45:17 GMT, [email protected] (David
    Wright) wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >rodney_victor <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    >>hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    >>posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    >>conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    >>the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    >>love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    >>vaccinations.

    >
    >Why doesn't she want to save them from the dangers of vaccine-
    >preventable diseases?


    That is an easy question. Jan is so pissed at conventional medicine
    for not indulging her somatic hypervigilance and delusions that she is
    obsessed with demonizing conventional medicine. Since vaccines are
    part of conventional medicine Jan Drew has little choice but to focus
    obsessively about the negative aspects of vaccination while completely
    ignoring the millions of children who die each year from vaccine
    preventable diseases. She has been confronted about this many times
    and has not responded.

    Jan could not give a rat's ass about children unless she can use a
    child's death to support her anticonventional medicine agenda. This
    has been clearly demonstrated by her posts. She ONLY posts children's
    deaths if they die do to conventional medicine errors. She completely
    ignores the millions of children who did of vaccine preventable
    diseases.

    If Jan Drew's behavior is seen as loving children I would hate to see
    how she would behave is she hated them.


    > The odds of harm from the disease (with
    >the possible exception of chicken pox) are much higher than the
    >odds of harm from the vaccine.


    Cue Jan to say that if your child was damaged by vaccine you would not
    feel this way.
    >
    >>Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    >>good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    >>come to the opposite conclusion.

    >
    >It's highly questionable that she has done anything of the sort. She
    >shows no evidence of it. She shows a lot of evidence of knee-jerk
    >reaction to anything in conventional medicine -- she labels it "bad."
    >This is not a sign of "considering the evidence." Quite the contrary.


    Actually when Jan is asked directly about vaccines she says that she
    is not against them. She also says that she thinks that the most
    difficult decision that a parent must make is the decision to
    vaccinate their children. It is clear that Jan realizes that
    vaccinations may be helpful (compared to her opinion about dental
    amalgams).

    However she obsessively posts antivac whacko sites due to her
    obsessive need to demonize CM. You see her need to demonize CM clearly
    outweighs the damage done to millions of children around the world.
    Jan Drew's priorities are obvious. Her first priority is to rail
    against CM. Anything else is secondary.


    >>Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.

    >
    >Who says she's standing for the truth? Just because you think God is
    >on your side doesn't mean anything. If both teams playing in a
    >football game pray before the game, only one of them is still going to
    >win. Does God hate the losing team?


    He obviously hates the Red Sox and Cubs.
    >
    >>Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you
    >>will not grow weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)

    >
    >Irrelevant. She's not trying to save our souls, she's trying to abuse
    >us (and succeeding).


    Actually she is not trying to abuse anyone even though abuse is a
    byproduct of her psychosis, delusions, somatic hypervigilance. She is
    one sick cookie and in this group she has enough enablers to keep her
    from getting well.

    Aloha,

    Rich
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    > were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    >
    >
    >


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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  5. "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > rodney_victor <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    > >hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    > >posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    > >conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    > >the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    > >love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    > >vaccinations.

    >
    > Why doesn't she want to save them from the dangers of vaccine-
    > preventable diseases? The odds of harm from the disease (with
    > the possible exception of chicken pox) are much higher than the
    > odds of harm from the vaccine.


    Even one of Wakefield's colleagues is not saying that there is NO autism
    link, and that the risk for the disease is far greater.

    Why is Jan silent on this????
     
  6. [email protected] (rodney_victor) wrote:

    >Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.
    >
    >I have a couple of verses to encourage you:


    And here's another:

    But I learned to accept it
    Accept it with pride
    For you don't count the dead
    When God's on your side

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  7. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >From: [email protected] (rodney_victor)
    >Date: 10/31/2003 6:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    >hates vaccinations


    I have expressed otherwise.

    You have judged incorrectly.

    >That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    >posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site


    You conclude wrong and evidently haven't read some of my posts.

    >You cannot use that fact to
    >conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    >the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    >love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    >vaccinations.


    >Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    >good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    >come to the opposite conclusion


    Wrong again.

    >She is perfectly entitled to her
    >opinion that it's not in the best interests of young children to have
    >the blood and pus of sick horses, along with some mercury and various
    >other chemicals, pumped into their bloodstreams.


    >I have a great deal of admiration for Jan, who is subjected to the
    >most terrible abuse in this newsgroup day after day for standing up
    >for her convictions in the face of the almost overwhelming power of
    >the medical establishment. I'm sure that her dedication has helped
    >many people to find simple, natural remedies for their complaints,

    rather than the drugs that are pushed by the licenced drug-pushers.

    >Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.


    Correct.

    >I have a couple of verses to encourage you:
    >
    >"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith,
    >who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,
    >and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who
    >endured such opposition from sinful

    men, so that you will not grow
    >weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)


    Thank you for the kind words, the debunkers are angry because they have failed
    to run me off, as is their practice. They are also agry, they can't get by with
    lying, and they are agry, they can't beat me down.

    Now, let's clear up the vaccination thing. I just posted this recently.

    From: Jan ([email protected])
    Subject: Re: Opportunity for better health
    View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
    Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
    Date: 2003-10-08 19:16:25 PST

    Peter Bowditch wrote:

    <snip>

    And she opposes vaccination.
    >>>
    >>>Cue Jan to ask me to c&p the exact word "oppose".


    I wrote:

    Why did you use the word??
    >
    >Because it was the appropriate word to use.


    Well, no it was not.

    Previously I stated:

    >I can see both sides, but to dismiss the high increase of autism after the

    shot
    is not realistic. I'm glad my kids are raised, and my heart goes out to all the
    parents who must make a decision.


    >Do you oppose vaccination?


    Not generally, no. What I oppose is all the *LIES* , the *DENIAL*, the vested
    interest, the sealing of documents of side effects. The public has a right to
    know.

    I also oppose the use of thimerosal.

    I oppose the MMR. three shots in one that I believe overwhelms a young body.

    I oppose those who would try to take away the right to choose. I oppose all
    the names parents are called, who decide not to vaccinate their kids. I oppose
    that they are called stupid and anti-vaccnation liars.


    >>To make a total of three lies and divert from David?

    >Is it a lie that you oppose vaccination?


    YES!!

    Jan
     
  8. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >Date: 10/31/2003 11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >rodney_victor <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    >>hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    >>posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    >>conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    >>the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    >>love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    >>vaccinations.

    >
    >Why doesn't she want to save them from the dangers of vaccine-
    >preventable diseases? The odds of harm from the disease (with
    >the possible exception of chicken pox) are much higher than the
    >odds of harm from the vaccine.
    >
    >>Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    >>good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    >>come to the opposite conclusion.

    >
    >It's highly questionable that she has done anything of the sort. She
    >shows no evidence of it. She shows a lot of evidence of knee-jerk
    >reaction to anything in conventional medicine -- she labels it "bad."
    >This is not a sign of "considering the evidence." Quite the contrary.
    >
    >>She is perfectly entitled to her opinion that it's not in the best
    >>interests of young children to have the blood and pus of sick horses,
    >>along with some mercury and various other chemicals, pumped into
    >>their bloodstreams.

    >
    >Except that's not what's in most vaccines, especially the mercury.
    >So such an objection is meaningless.
    >
    >>I have a great deal of admiration for Jan, who is subjected to the
    >>most terrible abuse in this newsgroup day after day for standing up
    >>for her convictions in the face of the almost overwhelming power of
    >>the medical establishment.

    >
    >Many of the people who are critical of Jan are not part of the
    >"medical establishment." And sticking by one's guns in a wrong-
    >headed attitude is not a virtue. Sincerity is highly overrated.
    >
    >>I'm sure that her dedication has helped many people to find simple,
    >>natural remedies for their complaints, rather than the drugs that are
    >>pushed by the licenced drug-pushers.

    >
    >I doubt that she has done anything of the sort, since most of her
    >tirades are not directed towards helping others find salvation through
    >"natural" cures (a questionable term). Most of them are about the
    >evils of mercury and the awfulness of conventional medicine.
    >
    >>Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.

    >
    >Who says she's standing for the truth? Just because you think God is
    >on your side doesn't mean anything. If both teams playing in a
    >football game pray before the game, only one of them is still going to
    >win. Does God hate the losing team?
    >
    >>Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you
    >>will not grow weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)

    >
    >Irrelevant. She's not trying to save our souls, she's trying to abuse
    >us (and succeeding).


    Mercy me.

    Who is doing the abusing???

    Another lie. David, and NOT an unknowing one.

    http://tinyurl.com/t7my

    That comes from Ted Nidiffer.

    Who has handed out abuse using my ill and even dead parents to belittle??

    For the most abusive poster see Andrew Kingoff rantings and lies.

    Jan
     
  9. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >Date: 10/31/2003 2:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >[email protected] (rodney_victor) wrote:
    >
    >>Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.
    >>
    >>I have a couple of verses to encourage you:

    >
    >And here's another:
    >
    >But I learned to accept it
    >Accept it with pride
    >For you don't count the dead
    >When God's on your side


    Umm. Please acknowledge the source of your quotes, Peter.

    Thos one is truly sick.

    God doesn't take sides.

    Death is very painful for anyone who is capable of feeling.

    Jan
     
  10. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >From: [email protected] (Jan)
    >Date: 10/31/2003 5:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >>Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >>Date: 10/31/2003 11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>rodney_victor <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>If Jan posts the URL of an anti-vaccination site, it means that she
    >>>hates vaccinations. That's all that you can logically conclude if she
    >>>posts the URL to an anti-vaccination site. You cannot use that fact to
    >>>conclude that she hates children. In fact, all the evidence points to
    >>>the fact that she loves children. And no doubt it is because of her
    >>>love for children that she wants to save them from the dangers of
    >>>vaccinations.

    >>
    >>Why doesn't she want to save them from the dangers of vaccine-
    >>preventable diseases? The odds of harm from the disease (with
    >>the possible exception of chicken pox) are much higher than the
    >>odds of harm from the vaccine.
    >>
    >>>Some evidently think (or are being paid to say) that vaccinations are
    >>>good for children, but Jan has considered the evidence and she has
    >>>come to the opposite conclusion.

    >>
    >>It's highly questionable that she has done anything of the sort. She
    >>shows no evidence of it. She shows a lot of evidence of knee-jerk
    >>reaction to anything in conventional medicine -- she labels it "bad."
    >>This is not a sign of "considering the evidence." Quite the contrary.
    >>
    >>>She is perfectly entitled to her opinion that it's not in the best
    >>>interests of young children to have the blood and pus of sick horses,
    >>>along with some mercury and various other chemicals, pumped into
    >>>their bloodstreams.

    >>
    >>Except that's not what's in most vaccines, especially the mercury.
    >>So such an objection is meaningless.
    >>
    >>>I have a great deal of admiration for Jan, who is subjected to the
    >>>most terrible abuse in this newsgroup day after day for standing up
    >>>for her convictions in the face of the almost overwhelming power of
    >>>the medical establishment.

    >>
    >>Many of the people who are critical of Jan are not part of the
    >>"medical establishment." And sticking by one's guns in a wrong-
    >>headed attitude is not a virtue. Sincerity is highly overrated.
    >>
    >>>I'm sure that her dedication has helped many people to find simple,
    >>>natural remedies for their complaints, rather than the drugs that are
    >>>pushed by the licenced drug-pushers.

    >>
    >>I doubt that she has done anything of the sort, since most of her
    >>tirades are not directed towards helping others find salvation through
    >>"natural" cures (a questionable term). Most of them are about the
    >>evils of mercury and the awfulness of conventional medicine.
    >>
    >>>Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>>and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>>effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.

    >>
    >>Who says she's standing for the truth? Just because you think God is
    >>on your side doesn't mean anything. If both teams playing in a
    >>football game pray before the game, only one of them is still going to
    >>win. Does God hate the losing team?
    >>
    >>>Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you
    >>>will not grow weary and lose heart." (Heb 12:2-3)

    >>
    >>Irrelevant. She's not trying to save our souls, she's trying to abuse
    >>us (and succeeding).

    >
    >Mercy me.
    >
    >Who is doing the abusing???
    >
    >Another lie. David, and NOT an unknowing one.
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/t7my


    Correction:

    http://jan.drew.wasarrested.com/S-Florida/Tampa+Bay/prostitute/F

    This is Ted's style.
     
  11. dickinson

    dickinson Guest

    Peter Bowditch wrote:
    > [email protected] (rodney_victor) wrote:
    >
    >> Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >> and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >> effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.
    >>
    >> I have a couple of verses to encourage you:

    >
    > And here's another:
    >
    > But I learned to accept it
    > Accept it with pride
    > For you don't count the dead
    > When God's on your side


    In a many dark hour
    I've been thinkin' about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can't think for you
    You'll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side.

    So now as I'm leavin'
    I'm weary as Hell
    The confusion I'm feelin'
    Ain't no tongue can tell
    The words fill my head
    And fall to the floor
    If God's on our side
    He'll stop the next war.
     
  12. [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >>From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >>Date: 10/31/2003 2:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>[email protected] (rodney_victor) wrote:
    >>
    >>>Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>>and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>>effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.
    >>>
    >>>I have a couple of verses to encourage you:

    >>
    >>And here's another:
    >>
    >>But I learned to accept it
    >>Accept it with pride
    >>For you don't count the dead
    >>When God's on your side

    >
    >Umm. Please acknowledge the source of your quotes, Peter.


    Sorry, I made a mistake by not giving the source. See how easy it is
    to apologise.

    Bob Dylan - With God on Our Side, 1964. Full words at
    http://bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html

    >Thos one is truly sick.


    It's an anti-war song, much like "Late Home Tonight" by Roger Waters,
    another song you denigrated without comprehension. I did not expect
    you to recognise it or appreciate its meaning.

    >God doesn't take sides.


    Maybe He should. More from Bob:

    So now as I'm leavin'
    I'm weary as Hell
    The confusion I'm feelin'
    Ain't no tongue can tell
    The words fill my head
    And fall to the floor
    If God's on our side
    He'll stop the next war

    >Death is very painful for anyone who is capable of feeling.
    >
    >Jan


    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  13. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >Date: 10/31/2003 6:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>>Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >>>From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >>>Date: 10/31/2003 2:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>>
    >>>[email protected] (rodney_victor) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>>>and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>>>effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the effort.
    >>>>
    >>>>I have a couple of verses to encourage you:
    >>>
    >>>And here's another:
    >>>
    >>>But I learned to accept it
    >>>Accept it with pride
    >>>For you don't count the dead
    >>>When God's on your side

    >>
    >>Umm. Please acknowledge the source of your quotes, Peter.

    >
    >Sorry, I made a mistake by not giving the source. See how easy it is
    >to apologise.


    Uh huh, I already know as I have done it plenty of times.

    How easy is it to apologise for your lies in your Three dead children website
    and comments here??

    Do show us.

    >Bob Dylan - With God on Our Side, 1964. Full words at
    >http://bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html
    >
    >>Thos one is truly sick.


    >It's an anti-war song, much like "Late Home Tonight" by Roger Waters,
    >another song you denigrated without comprehension


    It's pretty hard to denigrate a song I've never heard.

    > I did not expect you to recognise it or appreciate its meaning.


    I see nothing to appreciate.

    As I said, God doesn't take sides and death is painful to anyone who is capable
    of feelings.

    I thought you just expressed the pain of those you know who committed suicide.

    >>God doesn't take sides.

    >
    >Maybe He should. More from Bob:


    I disagree. That would be unfair, and that isn't like the God I know.

    >So now as I'm leavin'
    >I'm weary as Hell
    >The confusion I'm feelin'
    >Ain't no tongue can tell
    >The words fill my head
    >And fall to the floor
    >If God's on our side
    >He'll stop the next war


    I disagree with that also. God gave man a choice, some people incorrectly blame
    God, for all bad things happening in this world. These things come from making
    wrong choices.

    >>Death is very painful for anyone who is capable of feeling.
    >>
    >>Jan
     
  14. dickinson

    dickinson Guest

    Jan wrote:
    >> Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >> From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >> Date: 10/31/2003 2:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >> Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >> [email protected] (rodney_victor) wrote:
    >>
    >>> Jan, I gather you are a believer in the God who created the heavens
    >>> and the earth, and I am sure that He sustains you sometimes when the
    >>> effort of standing for the truth seems to be hardly worth the
    >>> effort.
    >>>
    >>> I have a couple of verses to encourage you:

    >>
    >> And here's another:
    >>
    >> But I learned to accept it
    >> Accept it with pride
    >> For you don't count the dead
    >> When God's on your side

    >
    > Umm. Please acknowledge the source of your quotes, Peter.


    Robert Zimmerman..........you probably wouldn't relate to
    him........he's Jewish.

    > Thos one is truly sick.


    > God doesn't take sides.


    Thicko.......the song relates to the "humans" who think he does, and
    those who will use religion to further *their* ends.

    > Death is very painful for anyone who is capable of feeling.


    Enlightening!
     
  15. WB

    WB Guest

    On 01 Nov 2003 01:56:36 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:


    >
    >Death is very painful for anyone who is capable of feeling.
    >
    >Jan



    Then you should have a very easy time with it when your number is up.

    WB
    --
    Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
    [email protected]
     
  16. WB

    WB Guest

    Just going to snip out a couple of points on this diatribe
    as it wanders all over the place.


    On 01 Nov 2003 03:29:43 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>It's an anti-war song, much like "Late Home Tonight" by Roger Waters,
    >>another song you denigrated without comprehension

    >
    >It's pretty hard to denigrate a song I've never heard.
    >
    >> I did not expect you to recognise it or appreciate its meaning.

    >
    >I see nothing to appreciate.



    Question: What qualifies anyone to comment on anything
    that you have never heard?

    >
    >As I said, God doesn't take sides


    You are wrong here, God takes sides, against evil.

    >and death is painful to anyone who is capable
    >of feelings.


    Since you don't have *Personal Experience* yet;
    you are unqualified to comment about your own death.

    -WB



    --
    Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
    [email protected]
     
  17. dickinson

    dickinson Guest

    WB wrote:
    > On 01 Nov 2003 01:56:36 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Death is very painful for anyone who is capable of feeling.
    >>
    >> Jan

    >
    >
    > Then you should have a very easy time with it when your number is up.


    Splork!!!!! <wipes coffee off monitor> :)
     
  18. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >From: WB [email protected]
    >Date: 10/31/2003 8:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >Just going to snip out a couple of points on this diatribe
    >as it wanders all over the place.


    >Question: What qualifies anyone to comment on anything
    >that you have never heard?


    That doesn't make sense.

    >As I said, God doesn't take sides
    >
    >You are wrong here, God takes sides, against evil.


    Duh. God doesn't take sides with people, he loves them all equally.

    >>and death is painful to anyone who is capable
    >>of feelings.

    >
    >Since you don't have *Personal Experience* yet;
    >you are unqualified to comment about your own death.
    >
    >-WB


    Are you drinking again tonight?

    I said nothing about my own death.

    Get real and get lost. Troll.

    Jan
     
  19. dickinson

    dickinson Guest

    Jan wrote:
    >> Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >> From: WB [email protected]
    >> Date: 10/31/2003 8:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >> Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >> Just going to snip out a couple of points on this diatribe
    >> as it wanders all over the place.

    >
    >> Question: What qualifies anyone to comment on anything
    >> that you have never heard?

    >
    > That doesn't make sense.
    >
    >> As I said, God doesn't take sides
    >>
    >> You are wrong here, God takes sides, against evil.

    >
    > Duh. God doesn't take sides with people, he loves them all equally.
    >
    >>> and death is painful to anyone who is capable
    >>> of feelings.

    >>
    >> Since you don't have *Personal Experience* yet;
    >> you are unqualified to comment about your own death.
    >>
    >> -WB

    >
    > Are you drinking again tonight?
    >
    > I said nothing about my own death.
    >
    > Get real and get lost. Troll.


    *Vereeeeeey* Christian.
     
  20. "Damnant quod non intelligunt"

    Jan wrote:
    >>Subject: Re: Rampant Hate and Lies
    >>From: WB [email protected]
    >>Date: 10/31/2003 8:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <81e6qvc[email protected]>
    >>
    >>Just going to snip out a couple of points on this diatribe
    >>as it wanders all over the place.

    >
    >
    >>Question: What qualifies anyone to comment on anything
    >>that you have never heard?

    >
    >
    > That doesn't make sense.
    >
    >
    >>As I said, God doesn't take sides
    >>
    >>You are wrong here, God takes sides, against evil.

    >
    >
    > Duh. God doesn't take sides with people, he loves them all equally.
    >
    >
    >>>and death is painful to anyone who is capable
    >>>of feelings.

    >>
    >>Since you don't have *Personal Experience* yet;
    >>you are unqualified to comment about your own death.
    >>
    >>-WB

    >
    >
    > Are you drinking again tonight?
    >
    > I said nothing about my own death.
    >
    > Get real and get lost. Troll.
    >
    > Jan
     
Loading...