"Kent Wills" <compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:gmbd74pprufqs8a50bv808gk5ao7g9fbdm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:29:36 GMT, Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Kent Wills <compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>news:i8ma74d60qefqjqccrg3b4v0rita8erkg1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:31:17 GMT, Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snips for brevity]
>>>
>>>>>>What has he presented?
>>>>>
>>>>> A true hate for the God of the Bible while holding no ill
>>>>> feelings for the deities of any other religion.
>>>>
>>>>A little overdetermined, dontchathink? "True" hate? Jonez is making
>>>>fun of you; you're helping him.
>>>
>>> It's true hate.
>>
>>When they make the list of "true hate," Jonez' name won't even come up.
>>
>
> He may not get the number one spot, but his name will certainly be
> on the hypothetical list.
>
>>> If he's just pretending, then he has more serious
>>> issues that I ever dared imagine.
>>
>>How could we know what he pretends? He's provoking. Stop diagnosing
his
>>"issues." You can't know about those.
>
> I've made no diagnosis regarding his issues. I simply point out
> that if it's all an act, then he has issues. More than I ever dared
> imagine.
>
>>
>>>>>>You think "conversations" with Jonez are to be
>>>>>>judge like ordinary exchanges? He's pretty cagey about saying what
>>>>>>he thinks; he let's you jump to conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>> If my conclusions were/are in error, he's had ample time to
>>>>> correct me.
>>>>
>>>>He's a trickster; he doesn't explain. That draws in the marks.
>>>
>>> If I understand your position correctly, you think he wants to be
>>> seen as he is.
>>
>>I don't think his image is much of a concern. But I can't know, so I
>>don't speculate about what he wants. I know what he gets.
>>
>>> If this is what he wants, then he shouldn't be upset
>>> when people state they see him as he wants.
>>
>>I don't know what he wants. I doubt he's upset.
>
> He certainly plays the part well, if he's not.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>Well, he clearly has the "authority" to judge you according to his
>>>>>>>>own lights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone does. However, Christians are warned that we'll be
>>>>>>> held
>>>>>>> to those same standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doesn't seem to affect a lot of you for the better. Just look at
>>>>>>the exchanges between Jonez and the good Christians on this
>>>>>>newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, I'm the only Christian
>>>>
>>>>Really? How do we know that? Anyone can play a saint in cyberspace.
>>>
>>> Did you miss, "As far as I know..."? Did the bit where I wrote,
>>> "There may be others who have chosen not to make it known they are
>>> Christian." slip by?
>>
>>No, I'm saying how do we know that *you're* a Christian? Because you
>>say so?
>
> Sure. Have you seen any post from me that would indicate I'm
> not? If so, please cite the post(s).
>
>>
>>> For all I know, you are a Christian who has chosen not to let
>>> Jonezie, et al., know. It's equally possible at this time you are
>>> not.
>>
>>An excellent position to take with regard to me. And if I asked you
>>why, you'd probably say that you don't have any evidence one way or the
>>other. You have the same amount of evidence for Jonez.
>
> You've not offered any evidence one way or the other. Jonezie
> has offered evidence that he does believe. Why else would he feel the
> need to tell a god he believes is fictional, "**** you!"?
>
>>
>>>>> with whom he has any
>>>>> exchange in misc.legal. There may be others who have chosen not to
>>>>> make it known they are Christian.
>>>>> I'm more than willing to be held to the same standards I hold
>>>>> to
>>>>> Jonezie.
>>>>
>>>>How Christian of you! Literally. Christians through the ages have
>>>>always been willing to hold others to their standards: believe and
>>>>you're saved along with them. The rest they've been willing to hold
>>>>to the torch.
>>>>
>>>>> If I express hate for a deity while stating I believe said
>>>>> deity
>>>>> to be fictional, I would expect someone to point it out. In fact, I
>>>>> would expect to be mocked for the conflicting position.
>>>>
>>>>You are being mocked. You just haven't picked up on it yet.
>>>
>>> When have I expressed hate for a deity I believe is fictional?
>>
>>That's not the target of the mockery.
>
> I wrote, "If I express hate for a deity while stating I believe
> said deity to be fictional, I would expect someone to point it out.
> In fact, I would expect to be mocked for the conflicting position."
> You replied, "You are being mocked. You just haven't picked up on
> it yet."
> The context makes it clear you think I've expressed hate for a
> deity I believe is fictional and that I'm being mocked for it.
>
>>
>>>>> Of course, since I believe all deities other than Jehovah are
>>>>> fictional,
>>>>
>>>>Based of course on the same evidence.
>>>
>>> If you wish.
>>
>>This has got nothing to do with what I want or don't.
>>
>>>>> there's no rational reason for me to develop, let alone
>>>>> express, any feeling for them.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How about the parable of the church's 1965 year war against Jews
>>>>>>>>for the killing of your god?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Moe's not a Christian, your question doesn't make much
>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The argument doesn't really rely on what Moe is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked Moe, "How about the parable of the church's 1965 year
>>>>> war against Jews for the killing of your god?"
>>>>> Unless you are claiming knowledge about a deity within Wicca
>>>>> being killed by the Jews, you most probably mean Jesus. She's made
>>>>> it very clear that she's not a Christian.
>>>>
>>>>OK, OK. Change the antecedent of "your" to someone else more
>>>>Christian.
>>>
>>> Why would Moe want to comment about someone else paying attention
>>> to a parable Jesus never made?
>>
>>Pick another Moe, a Christian one.
>
> I know only one Moe. Really.
>
>>
>>Did I really need to put irony quotes around "parable"?
>
> No.
>
>>
>>>>> BTW, Jesus was supposed to be killed. Trying to blame the Jews,
>>>>> or the Romans, or anyone else, is kind of silly for anyone.
>>>>
>>>>And yet the Roman Catholic Church did that for over 1900 years. Go
>>>>figure. The schismatics weren't much better.
>>>
>>> Which was wrong. There's no way around it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>In the first place,
>>>>>>anyone can play Samantha in cyberspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's *possible* that Moe's been lying about her religion for the
>>>>> past few years. It's also possible I had a rib eye steak for
>>>>> supper. Since I'm a vegetarian, it's not very likely, just like Moe
>>>>> having been lying all this time isn't very likely.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone can play a vegan or Sukie Rougemont in cyberspace.
>>
>>> When has either been claimed in this conversation?
>>
>>It's a comment on your assertion of possibility.
>
> Do you accept that it's very implausible?
>
>>
>>> I'm certainly not a vegan (I consume dairy products)
>>
>>Why should I believe that?
>
> What motivation would I have to lie about my consumption of dairy
> products?
>
>>
>>> and couldn't pass myself off as an actress. I have the wrong plumbing
>>> for one thing, and I can't act.
>>
>>Oh, I think you're just being modest. With good enough acting skills,
>>you wouldn't need the right plumbing anyway.
>
> Well, Dustin Hoffman was sort of able to pull it off in "Tootsie"
> so it's possible I could. However, I would need to spend far more
> time on my acting ability than I am willing to become an actor.
> There's a reason my acting roles have never been more than being
> an extra. Give me a speaking role, even one line, and I'll manage to
> mess it up.
>
>>
>>>>>>Secondly, see above where it
>>>>>>sqays "had you actually studied Christian teachings"? It's
>>>>>>pointless to throw "Christian teachings" at Jonez.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing to do with your question to Moe about the Jews
>>>>> killing her god.
>>>>> Oh, I think, though Moe would be a more authoritative source,
>>>>> Wicca has more than one deity.
>>>>
>>>>Change the antecedent of "her" if it makes you happier.
>>>
>>> Moe's gender also doesn't factor in.
>>
>>You understand that this is a nonsequitur, right? Change the antecedent
>>means pick someone else.
>
> I presumed you were emphasizing her gender.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>> And calling someone a blasphemer is ironic considering your
>>>>>>>>> rabid
>>>>>>>>> hatred for Jehovah.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He doesn't hate Jehovah.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He certainly does, or he really wants people to think he does.
>>>>>>> If he doesn't, but only wants people to think he does, then he
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> some issues that really need to be addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jonez isn't much of an explainer. But it seems to me that his
>>>>>>tirades makes more sense directed at people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet he must include the God of the Bible in his tirades. Ever
>>>>> seen an angry post from him directed at Brahma or Vishnu?
>>>>> If, as appears to be the case, he believes they are fictional,
>>>>> he
>>>>> has no reason to love or hate them. This is the reason he doesn't
>>>>> care about them.
>>>>
>>>>Or he's got you on the line. Brahma and Vishnu wouldn't sink the hook
>>>>in you.
>>>
>>> Or in anyone else.
>>
>>Not even Hindus?
>>
>
> Perhaps them, but since he does believe Brahma and Vishnu are
> fictional, he has no desire.
There's no "belief" about it you stammering imbecile.
>
>>> Since he believes they are fictional
>>
>>How do you know what he believes?
>
> You make a valid point. I'll re-phrase.
> Since he's offered nothing to which to attach a claim that he
> does believe them to be real...
>
>>
>>> (I doubt he would disagree with me),
>>
>>Why do you doubt that?
>
> He's never offered anything, as far as I've seen, to indicate he
> believes they're real.
So please cite where I've ever offered anything to
indicate your perverse murderous grotesque gaaawd
creature is real.
> I must point out I don't read everything he
> posts,
Riiiiight.
>so it's possible he's presented evidence of belief.
>
>>
>>> he has no reason to develop or express any feelings for them.
>>
>>Or maybe occasion.
>
> I personally know two Hindus who post to Usenet.
ROTFLMAO!
> I presume there
> are others. There's nothing to indicate he has ever attacked the
> Hindu deities.
" I don't read everything he posts."
>>
>>> Further, you would likely claim he has Moe on the line. She
>>> doesn't have the same belief system as me. He's never spoken ill of
>>> the deities of Wicca.
>>
>>But she's still floppin' around in this newsgroup like a gaffed marlin.
>
> Moe has strong ethics.
So what's ethical about being a habitual lying ****?
> One doesn't need to be a part of [insert
> religious belief system here] to see when someone is being deceptive
> and expose it.
>
>>
>>> No matter how you try, you can't dismiss that Jonezie does believe
>>> in the God of the Bible.
>>
>>It's easy. I don't have any evidence of what Jonez believes or doesn't
>>believe, so I don't conclude one way or the other. I know what he posts
>>and I know what the responses are.
>
> His posts attack not only the followers of the God of the Bible,
> but often the God Himself.
Which "god" ?
>
>>
>>> Aside from claiming he's more mentally unstable than I think anyone is
>>> willing to claim, you, I and everyone else must accept that he
>>> believes.
>>
>>I don't have any evidence of Jonez' mental stability or lack thereof, so
>>I don't conclude one way or the other.
>
> He either believes or wants people to think he does. Try as I do,
> I can't think of a rational reason for him to want to pretend.
Because you lack any common sense or rationality.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>He might hate you, but then again "[n]o
>>>>>>>>human can percieve another's soul, much less inner thoughts," eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless they make it clear how they feel/think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah! But Jonez' specialty is not making it clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is, actually. Maybe not as clear as you would like, but he's
>>>>> being pretty clear.
>>>>
>>>>As I would like? Don't project onto me.
>>>
>>> Did you miss the word "maybe" that appears at the start of the
>>> sentence?
>>
>>You're saying that it may not be as clear as I'd like (like you'd know
>>what I like)
>
> I'm saying maybe.
>
>>but that it still should be "pretty clear" to me (like you'd
>>know what's clear to me).
>
> I can't know, which is why I added the qualifier maybe.
>
>>
>>>>I don't care how clear he is.
>>>
>>> But it's crucial to your argument.
>>> While you don't use these words, you present that he's making it
>>> clear he's pretending.
>>
>>Beside the provocation, the only thing that's clear is that Jonez' isn't
>>clear and doesn't clear things up.
>
> He does, if you understand his mind set.
>
>>
>>>>>>It's clear what *you* think, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think he has some serious anger issues related to the God of
>>>>> the Bible. It's anyone's guess as to what these issues are.
>>>>> I have some guesses, but they are only guesses.
>>>>
>>>>*All* of your claims about Jonez are guesses. That's my point.
>>>
>>> Not so. I know he's a male in his mid to late 40's with thinning
>>> hair who lives, or lived (it's possible he's moved) in Bolder Co.
>>
>>And you know this how?
>
> The posts were traced to him.
You're lying again, Kunt.
> You'd likely be amazed at how
> willing the people at Motz were to help (I certainly was).
So who at Motz actually helped you, eh Kunt?
> Had I known they were so willing, I would have contacted them myself
> about
> the matter. Having a friend in law enforcement do the contacting may
> have helped, of course.
Would that be the same "friend" who arrested you for Burglary ?
>
>>
>>> Again, his threatening the lives of my children warranted the
>>> involvement of law enforcement.
>>
>>Just what was their "involvement"?
>
> They went to his home and spoke with him,
Who's "they", eh liar?
> encouraging him to cease.
Riiiight. And how exactly did they do that, eh Kunt?
> I don't have a transcript of the conversation,
What makes a lying asswipe like you think there was
a "transcript" ?
> presuming one was/is available, here. I do have copies of the notes one
> of the
> officers made at some point after the meeting.
So tell us when, exactly, and where, exactly, this "meeting" took place,
and who this "officer" was, exactly, you lying piece of ****.
> If the time laps is noted, I failed to spot it.
> Jonez did stop all posting for a while after it.
Prove it, liar.
> He's completely ceased posting the threats against my children.
Prove you even have children, you lying ****wipe.
>
>>
>>> While I don't have everything there
>>> is to know about the man available, I do have some stuff.
>>
>>Even if I grant you the thinning hair on his head, you've got nothing
>>about what's going on inside it.
>
> But *all* of my claims about Jonez are not guesses. That's the
> point I was making.
You're lying again, you lying Kunt.
>
>>
>>>>>>Or are you faking the outrage? Can another person ever
>>>>>>really tell?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's the outrage? Jonezie is free to have and express his
>>>>> hate
>>>>> for a deity that he claims he believes is fake while offering proof
>>>>> that he believes is real. Aside from showing his inability to be
>>>>> honest about his beliefs, it's no a big deal. Really.
>>>>
>>>>So then your outrage is fake? I'm willing to believe you.
>>>
>>> There is no outrage.
>>
>>If you say so.
>>
>>>>>>>>Really, trying to reason with Jonez about your religion just makes
>>>>>>>>you look silly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trying to reason with Jonezie is starting to loose it's
>>>>>>> interest with me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I predict that's not the case. Just a guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time will tell.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's clear he isn't able to comprehend anything outside of
>>>>>>> his small world view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Might that just be projection? Just another guess.
>>>>
>>>>> Anything is possible. However, not everything is probable.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Magic Eight Ball.
>>>
>>> I rather like that reply. I may have to grab it and use it from
>>> time to time.
>>
>>Prior permisson granted.
>
> Thank you.
|
