"Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:OoBdk.13846$jI5.7182@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kent Wills <compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> 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.
>
> No, he's name is on *your* list. That's different.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Whether it's an act or not, you've got absolutely no idea whether he has
> issues or not, and if he does, no idea how dire they are. That's the
> point.
>
>>>>>>>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.
>
> He's not *that* good. He slipped up with the fire-in-the-theater thing.
In *your* opinion. That's different.
>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>
> Sorry. All I'm willing to conclude is that you're willing to claim that
> you're a Christian.
His actions/postings betray that claim.
>
>> Have you seen any post from me that would indicate I'm not? If so,
>> please cite the post(s).
>
> Sure, when I asked "WWJD?" about Jonez you responded "Expose his
> hypocrisy. Just as I have done." Now, goddess knows I'm no expert on
> Christianity even though I play one in cyberspace, but I don't think a
> true Christian would impute his own actions to Jesus, and from my
> understanding, Jesus' message of loving one's enemies would preclude
> taking anyone's inventory. Seems pretty unchristian to me.
Bingo! Kent "the liar" Wills is no "christian".
>
>>>> 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.
>
> No, you believe you've gathered evidence. See the difference?
In Kunt's delusional world, there is no difference.
>
>> Why else would he feel the
>> need to tell a god he believes is fictional, "**** you!"?
>
> I don't know. Neither do you.
>
> <snip/>
>
>>>>>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.
>
> Then pick Curly. Are you sure this literal-mindedness doesn't get in
> your way?
>
>>>Did I really need to put irony quotes around "parable"?
>>
>> No.
>
> But you still thought I was talking about an actual parable?
>
>>>>>> 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 have absolutely no idea about your dining habits but you want me to
> assign a probability of truth to your asssertions about your dining
> habits?
>
>>>> 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?
>
> I asked first. Do you vegetarians always answer a question with a
> question?
Lying **** burglarious felons from Ankeny Iowa do.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> You're being far too modest.
>
>>>>>>>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.
>
> Why would you presume that, supposing you meant her *** and not the
> pronoun's gender?
>
> You do a lot of presuming. Which is my point, by the way.
>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> You don't know about his desires.
>
>>>> 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...
>
> ... we should refrain from drawing any conclusions. Which is the proper
> response to no evidence.
>
>>>> (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. I must point out I don't read everything he
>> posts, so it's possible he's presented evidence of belief.
>
> Nothin' from nothin' gets nothin'.
>
>>>> he has no reason to develop or express any feelings for them.
>>>
>>>Or maybe occasion.
>>
>> I personally know two Hindus who post to Usenet. I presume there
>> are others. There's nothing to indicate he has ever attacked the
>> Hindu deities.
>
> Repeat the above mantra as necessary.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Do we have any evidence of this?
>
>> One doesn't need to be a part of [insert
>> religious belief system here] to see when someone is being deceptive
>> and expose it.
>
> It's hard enough just to demonstrate that assertions have evidence to
> sup****t them, let alone diagnose the inner workings of a poster's mind
> from his posts.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> OK. I still only have the posts.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> You speculate on his beliefs, and then on the basis of your inability to
> plumb his mind, you conclude you understand his mental state.
>
> Have I got that right?
>
> <snip/>
>
>>>>>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.
>
> So you can understand his mindset if you understand his mindset.
>
> Have I got that straight?
>
>>>>>>>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'd likely be amazed at how
>> willing the people at Motz were to help (I certainly was). 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.
>
> Anyone can play Deputy Dawg in cyberspace.
>
>>>> 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, encouraging him to
>> cease. I don't have a transcript of the conversation, presuming one
>> was/is available, here. I do have copies of the notes one of the
>> officers made at some point after the meeting. If the time laps is
>> noted, I failed to spot it.
>> Jonez did stop all posting for a while after it. He's
>> completely ceased posting the threats against my children.
>
> Hey, Jonez! What brand of cops were they and what did they say?
They were Ankeny Fanstay Cops who drove their Chrysler K car
all the way from Iowa just to "chit chat" for a few minutes.
They got lost on the way out and had to call a few times
to get directions to the ranch, good thing they notified me
in advance of their pending arrival, otherwise I might have
been out of town and missed them. They did apologise
for the intrusion and stated that they knew Kent Wills was
a delusional lying psychopathic felon who, based upon the
strong evidence they had obtained, had forged the alleged
"threats" against his own imaginary family. They assured me
that Kent's doctor would be notified that his current level
of anti-psychotic medications is ineffective.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Every. Last. One.
>
>> That's the point I was making.
>
> <snip/>
|
