|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741067 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 21:58 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:02:06 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
<jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis
>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>>
>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish
>>>> existed. You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with
>>>> rape on his mind.
>>>>
>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>
>>>>> God who?
>>>>
>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>> response.
>>>
>>> What is god?
>>
>> He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>
>So god is a he?
To me He is and that's all that matters.
>That doesn't describe much, except god's sex and the fact
>that he is limited and not omnipotent.
Trying to explain God to you would be like trying to explain an
elephant to a blind man - he could never get beyond two tails. You'd
wind up saying there is no such animal.
>Does your personal knowledge of god
>mean you are blaspheming?
I expect He will let me know some day.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741068 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 22:01 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:51:56 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <4399e8c6.24588977 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net>,
> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >
>> >> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>> >> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>> >
>> >So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>> >according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves? Getting
>> >a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>> >
>> >CT
>> >
>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>
>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>*
>From California: Go east until you smell it.
> Go south until you step in it.
>
>(I believe that plan takes one to Texas.)
- or maybe Auburn.
>
>Here's a good reply for you:
>
>Q: What's the difference between a Florida orange and a California
>orange?
>
>A: Florida oranges don't suck back!
>
>earle
>*
>(Born in Birmingham and got the hell out ASAP -- age 17.)
>
I go through B'ham several times a year to get to our house in
Alabama. Under present conditions B'ham is a good place to be from
vice there.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741093 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 23:18 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:43:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<439b1392.17214623 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
><jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>
>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>
>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
>>> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
>>> mind.
>>>
>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>
>>>> God who?
>>>
>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>> response.
>>
>>What is god?
>
>He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
May I ask what god you believe in? From your posts you clearly are not
a Christian.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741103 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 00:02 |
|
Earle Jones wrote:
> In article <p1fjp1t2h4dtrr14kj73mrmshd52fdhjgd [at] 4ax.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
>> Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
>> <xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> France has taxes, right?
>>
>> Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
>> is a good model?
>
> *
> I believe that modern-day Japan is as good a model as we are going to
> find. Gun control -- great public transportation -- no tipping!
> (And a constitutional ban on sending troops out of the country.)
Are you stupid?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741107 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 00:03 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:02:06 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>
>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the
>>>>>>>> South according to you) don't believe they've progressed
>>>>>>>> themselves? Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but
>>>>>> you showed that with your first post.
>>>>>
>>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish
>>>>> existed. You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with
>>>>> rape on his mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God who?
>>>>>
>>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>>> response.
>>>>
>>>> What is god?
>>>
>>> He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>>
>> So god is a he?
>
> To me He is and that's all that matters.
>
>> That doesn't describe much, except god's sex and the fact
>> that he is limited and not omnipotent.
>
> Trying to explain God to you would be like trying to explain an
> elephant to a blind man - he could never get beyond two tails. You'd
> wind up saying there is no such animal.
You can't describe him to yourself.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741175 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 02:21 |
|
In article <18Jmf.145825$S4.138971 [at] edtnps84>,
"Jefferson N Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
> Earle Jones wrote:
> > In article <p1fjp1t2h4dtrr14kj73mrmshd52fdhjgd [at] 4ax.com>,
> > Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
> >> Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
> >> <xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> France has taxes, right?
> >>
> >> Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
> >> is a good model?
> >
> > *
> > I believe that modern-day Japan is as good a model as we are going to
> > find. Gun control -- great public transportation -- no tipping!
> > (And a constitutional ban on sending troops out of the country.)
>
> Are you stupid?
*
No.
earle
*
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741182 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 02:29 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:03:17 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
<jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:02:06 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>>> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the
>>>>>>>>> South according to you) don't believe they've progressed
>>>>>>>>> themselves? Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but
>>>>>>> you showed that with your first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish
>>>>>> existed. You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with
>>>>>> rape on his mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is god?
>>>>
>>>> He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>>>
>>> So god is a he?
>>
>> To me He is and that's all that matters.
>>
>>> That doesn't describe much, except god's sex and the fact
>>> that he is limited and not omnipotent.
>>
>> Trying to explain God to you would be like trying to explain an
>> elephant to a blind man - he could never get beyond two tails. You'd
>> wind up saying there is no such animal.
>
>You can't describe him to yourself.
>
>--
>Jefferson N. Glapski
>http://www.freealberta.com
>
>
Oh, I have a very clear picture of him in my mind but I won't put Him
in anyone else's mind.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741183 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 02:30 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:18:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:43:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><439b1392.17214623 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>><jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>>
>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
>>>> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>
>>>>> God who?
>>>>
>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>> response.
>>>
>>>What is god?
>>
>>He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>
>May I ask what god you believe in? From your posts you clearly are not
>a Christian.
>
>--
>Matt Silberstein
You're wrong. I'm just not a perfect Christian - neither is anyone
else for that matter.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741236 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 04:54 |
|
I can think of more than a few French women I'd like ot invade at the
moment...(A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!)
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741238 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 05:00 |
|
|
Good Lord--we must annihilate land of lager at once! Ready the ICBMs!
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741281 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 07:15 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:49:23 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:45:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:54:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>><4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>>>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Tedward
>>>>>
>>>>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>>>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
>>>>how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
>>>>and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
>>>>the budget back to its current imbalance.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>
>>>The only trouble with the South is that yankees are like hemorrhoids -
>>>they come down and don't go back up.
>>>
>>>No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>
>>>I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
>>>knows what I mean.
>>
>>I would be glad to dump off the South, I am tired of subsidizing their
>>lifestyle with my taxes.
>>
>>--
>>Matt Silberstein
>>
>>Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>lifestyle?
The Northeast supplies massive tax revenues to the South.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741282 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 07:16 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:30:53 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<439b8120.45259840 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:18:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:43:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><439b1392.17214623 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>><jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>>>
>>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
>>>>> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
>>>>> mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God who?
>>>>>
>>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>>> response.
>>>>
>>>>What is god?
>>>
>>>He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>>
>>May I ask what god you believe in? From your posts you clearly are not
>>a Christian.
>>
>>--
>>Matt Silberstein
>
>You're wrong. I'm just not a perfect Christian - neither is anyone
>else for that matter.
Perfection is not your problem. Your nasty insulting treatment of
others does not really let you take on that Christian "I am not
perfect" fake humility.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741288 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 07:24 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:03:17 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>
>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:02:06 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>>>> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the
>>>>>>>>>> South according to you) don't believe they've progressed
>>>>>>>>>> themselves? Getting a little tripped up in your own
>>>>>>>>>> 'logic'...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but
>>>>>>>> you showed that with your first post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish
>>>>>>> existed. You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg
>>>>>>> with rape on his mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need
>>>>>>> for a response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is god?
>>>>>
>>>>> He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the
>>>>> favor.
>>>>
>>>> So god is a he?
>>>
>>> To me He is and that's all that matters.
>>>
>>>> That doesn't describe much, except god's sex and the fact
>>>> that he is limited and not omnipotent.
>>>
>>> Trying to explain God to you would be like trying to explain an
>>> elephant to a blind man - he could never get beyond two tails. You'd
>>> wind up saying there is no such animal.
>>
>> You can't describe him to yourself.
>>
>> --
>> Jefferson N. Glapski
>> http://www.freealberta.com
>>
>>
> Oh, I have a very clear picture of him in my mind but I won't put Him
> in anyone else's mind.
That's sounds pretty gay, dude.
Why can't you describe what's in your mind? Is is perverse or something?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741333 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 14:21 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:24:53 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
<jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>That's sounds pretty gay, dude.
I am always gay but never queer.
>Why can't you describe what's in your mind? Is is perverse or something?
I am willing to let someone else slop the pigs when I'm feasting.
Unlike most Christians your atheism is not my problem. I have no need
to try making a silk purse from a sow's ear or to teach you to sing.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741339 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 14:29 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:16:08 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:30:53 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><439b8120.45259840 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:18:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:43:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>><439b1392.17214623 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>>><jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
>>>>>> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
>>>>>> mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is god?
>>>>
>>>>He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>>>
>>>May I ask what god you believe in? From your posts you clearly are not
>>>a Christian.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Matt Silberstein
>>
>>You're wrong. I'm just not a perfect Christian - neither is anyone
>>else for that matter.
>
>Perfection is not your problem. Your nasty insulting treatment of
>others
You sound like a hit dog barking.
>does not really let you take on that Christian "I am not
>perfect" fake humility.
I wish I could send you a quarter so you could call me when you become
God and my Judge.
Schma Israel. Adonai Elohanu. Adonai Echod. I think you understand
that, Silberstein.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741342 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 14:35 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:15:34 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:49:23 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:45:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>><4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:54:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>>><4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>>>>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>>>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>>>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>>>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>>>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>>>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>>>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--Tedward
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>>>>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
>>>>>how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
>>>>>and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
>>>>>the budget back to its current imbalance.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>>
>>>>The only trouble with the South is that yankees are like hemorrhoids -
>>>>they come down and don't go back up.
>>>>
>>>>No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>
>>>>I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
>>>>knows what I mean.
>>>
>>>I would be glad to dump off the South, I am tired of subsidizing their
>>>lifestyle with my taxes.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>
>>>Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>>
>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>lifestyle?
>
>The Northeast supplies massive tax revenues to the South.
The ne is even dumber than I thought. Keep those greenbacks coming...
And I didn't ask about the northeast, I asked what made you think YOU
could support my lifestyle.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741365 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 16:00 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:29:04 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<439c27e5.3143109 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:16:08 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:30:53 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><439b8120.45259840 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:18:26 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:43:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>><439b1392.17214623 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
>>>>><jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>>>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
>>>>>>> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
>>>>>>> mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> God who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is god?
>>>>>
>>>>>He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
>>>>
>>>>May I ask what god you believe in? From your posts you clearly are not
>>>>a Christian.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>
>>>You're wrong. I'm just not a perfect Christian - neither is anyone
>>>else for that matter.
>>
>>Perfection is not your problem. Your nasty insulting treatment of
>>others
>
>You sound like a hit dog barking.
>
>>does not really let you take on that Christian "I am not
>>perfect" fake humility.
>
>I wish I could send you a quarter so you could call me when you become
>God and my Judge.
>
>Schma Israel. Adonai Elohanu. Adonai Echod. I think you understand
>that, Silberstein.
ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741366 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 16:01 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:35:11 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<439c29d0.3634476 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:15:34 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:49:23 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:45:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>><4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:54:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>>>><4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>>>>>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>>>>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>>>>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>>>>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>>>>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>>>>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>>>>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--Tedward
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>>>>>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
>>>>>>how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
>>>>>>and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
>>>>>>the budget back to its current imbalance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>>>
>>>>>The only trouble with the South is that yankees are like hemorrhoids -
>>>>>they come down and don't go back up.
>>>>>
>>>>>No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>>denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
>>>>>knows what I mean.
>>>>
>>>>I would be glad to dump off the South, I am tired of subsidizing their
>>>>lifestyle with my taxes.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>>
>>>>Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>>>
>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>>lifestyle?
>>
>>The Northeast supplies massive tax revenues to the South.
>
>The ne is even dumber than I thought. Keep those greenbacks coming...
>
>And I didn't ask about the northeast, I asked what made you think YOU
>could support my lifestyle.
And what made you think I gave a flying f about you? Are you so
egocentric that when I wrote about one area subsidizing another you
figured I meant about me subsidizing you?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741368 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 16:04 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> To me He is and that's all that matters.
Clearly. Many of us have more varied interests.
CT
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741371 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 16:42 |
|
I was appealing more to knowledge/training; I'm not a social researcher
but I do have some background in that area, and it seems as though
people who've critcized the results of it aren't really debating the
substance of the study, as much as they are ignorant of how social
research operates. My impression, anyway. (Not to mention a
misunderstanding of what a confidence interval is.)
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741385 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 17:38 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:04:32 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> To me He is and that's all that matters.
>
>Clearly. Many of us have more varied interests.
>
>CT
>
You may have different interests but not more varied.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741387 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 17:51 |
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:01:48 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:35:11 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>And I didn't ask about the northeast, I asked what made you think YOU
>>could support my lifestyle.
>
>And what made you think I gave a flying f about you?
Who else are you responding to on this thread? Who else makes you
ROTFLYAO? I'd say you have a case of hero worship.
>Are you so
>egocentric that when I wrote about one area subsidizing another you
>figured I meant about me subsidizing you?
I'm the one you keep hanging with.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741398 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 18:06 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan escreveu:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> ><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
> >>>>>Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
> >>>>><xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>France has taxes, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
> >>>>>is a good model?
> >>>>
> >>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
> >>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
> >>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
> >>>
> >>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
> >>>days in existence?
> >>
> >>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
> >
> >So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
> >not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
> >a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
> >not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
> >could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
> >world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
> >inspection.
> >
> >[snip]
>
> First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
> opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
> out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
> world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
> appears to be doing very well.
What's China got to do with it? The resolution of those problems made
the world better because black people and women could vote. That's a
big deal already
>
> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
> much worse off, albeit their right.
Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
>
> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
>
> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
>
> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> made it better than the old simple one.
where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
all that you wrote above is recent?
>
> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
> won some and lost some.
The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
>
> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
> 8-)
>
> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
One more sign of your confusion
>
> The bottom line for me: is every day I'm here it just gets better.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741473 ] |
So, 11 Dezember 2005 20:46 |
|
On 11 Dec 2005 09:06:34 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan escreveu:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> ><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> >>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
>> >>>>>Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
>> >>>>><xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>[snip]
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>France has taxes, right?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
>> >>>>>is a good model?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>> >>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>> >>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>> >>>
>> >>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>> >>>days in existence?
>> >>
>> >>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>> >
>> >So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>> >not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>> >a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>> >not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>> >could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>> >world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>> >inspection.
>> >
>> >[snip]
>>
>> First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>> opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>> out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>> world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>> appears to be doing very well.
>
>What's China got to do with it? The resolution of those problems made
>the world better because black people and women could vote. That's a
>big deal already
Well, your denseness, China has an utter disregard for human rights
and is doing very well. So human rights alone didn't make us great.
>>
>> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>> much worse off, albeit their right.
>
>Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
>>
>> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
>> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
>> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
>> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
>> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
>>
>> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
>> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
>> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>
>So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
>live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
>allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
>desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
>>
>> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
>> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
>> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
>> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
>> made it better than the old simple one.
>
>where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
>old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
>all that you wrote above is recent?
Please read again and not the word "more" is used frequently.
>> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
>> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
>> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
>> won some and lost some.
>
>The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
>transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
>rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
>ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
country. You people just can't handle life.
>> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
>> 8-)
>>
>> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
>
>One more sign of your confusion
But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741565 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 00:03 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
> >> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
> >
> >Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
> >implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
> >feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
> >mean that it isn't true.
> >.
> >
> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
> had the franchise on describing you?
We clearly had some edge on Neanderthals that allowed us to crowd them
out to extinction....does that make us better? I doubt it....simply
different, and more reproductively successful. Beyond that....it's just
hot air.
>
> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
You gotta stop getting your information from AIG.
>
> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
> pointing this out.
Adam and Eve is a fairly tale with no basis in reality.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741772 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 13:15 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
-snip-
>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>inspection.
>>
>>[snip]
>
>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>appears to be doing very well.
>
>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>much worse off, albeit their right.
>
Golly gee - who knew that only white, 'murican, male types have the
right answers and know the only proper ways to run things.
Renata
PS IN a related note - just read an article on why conservatives are
never wrong. Wenever conservative policies crash and burn in the real
world, rather than rethink their ideas, conservatives simply redefine
the failures as un-conservative. Thus ole shrub is no longer
"conserbvative" because the country's drowning in debt (and he keeps
on filling the vat) under his watch.
-snip-
>
>Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741773 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 13:20 |
|
As opposed to the current group of conservatives, ever guiding us all
down the proper path, who only believe in throwing money at 1) the
wealthiest 1% or so and 2) corporations.
Renata
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:45:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:
-snip-
> I am prettty much insulated from the escalation of misery caused by
>liberals who think throwing "Government: money at every problem is the
>panacea. I grew up in an age when people were not so limited in their
>thinking.
>
-snip-
>Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741775 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 13:27 |
|
Renata wrote:
> As opposed to the current group of conservatives, ever guiding us all
> down the proper path, who only believe in throwing money at 1) the
> wealthiest 1% or so and 2) corporations.
>
Yes, it's called "trickle down economics"
The idea seems to be that if the wealthy get even wealthier, it is of
benefit to the rest of society. I've never been clear *why* this is a
benefit to the rest of society, but I guess those wealthy people who
think that this is a good idea know better than the rest of us what is
good for us.
RF
> Renata
>
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:45:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
> Sullivan) wrote:
> -snip-
> > I am prettty much insulated from the escalation of misery caused by
> >liberals who think throwing "Government: money at every problem is the
> >panacea. I grew up in an age when people were not so limited in their
> >thinking.
> >
> -snip-
> >Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741778 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 14:00 |
|
Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
Darfur?
No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
-Tom Enright
"Many Americans live in the world as it ought to be. We all ought
to be millionaires. We all ought to have top-paying jobs. We all
ought to be driving Rolls Royces and sailing yachts. To make
that world happen people turn to politicians. If you don't want to
pay what something costs, by working to earn the necessary
funds or sacrificing current consumption to invest for the future,
ask government to take the money from someone else."
-Doug Bandow
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.org
> http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> http://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741779 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 14:07 |
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:20:32 -0500, Renata <barskir [at] norealbox.com>
wrote:
>As opposed to the current group of conservatives, ever guiding us all
>down the proper path, who only believe in throwing money at 1) the
>wealthiest 1% or so and 2) corporations.
>
>Renata
It's not the homeless and the clerks who create jobs. And it's not the
wealthy who keep raising the min wage so corporations are priced out
of existence and forfeit pensions.
I will agree that many executives are paid absurd amounts of money.
OTOH I expect an exec could learn to be a boilermaker or a shoe
salesman quicker than they could learn to be an exec - if ever.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741781 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 14:10 |
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:13 -0500, Renata <barskir [at] norealbox.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
>Sullivan) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>-snip-
>>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>>inspection.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>>opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>>world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>>appears to be doing very well.
>>
>>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>>much worse off, albeit their right.
>>
>
>Golly gee - who knew that only white, 'murican, male types have the
>right answers and know the only proper ways to run things.
>
>Renata
>
>PS IN a related note - just read an article on why conservatives are
>never wrong. Wenever conservative policies crash and burn in the real
>world, rather than rethink their ideas, conservatives simply redefine
>the failures as un-conservative. Thus ole shrub is no longer
>"conserbvative" because the country's drowning in debt (and he keeps
>on filling the vat) under his watch.
I don't agree that conservatives are always right except when they
disagree with liberals. Abortion is an exception because the
alternative is worse.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741782 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 14:20 |
|
On 11 Dec 2005 15:03:53 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >
>> >> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>> >> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>> >
>> >Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>> >implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>> >feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>> >mean that it isn't true.
>> >.
>> >
>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>> had the franchise on describing you?
>
>We clearly had some edge on Neanderthals that allowed us to crowd them
>out to extinction....does that make us better? I doubt it....simply
>different, and more reproductively successful. Beyond that....it's just
>hot air.
I think it was intelligence although there is some uncertainty in your
case since you obviously wouldn't consider smarter being better.
>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>
>You gotta stop getting your information from AIG.
>
>>
>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>> pointing this out.
>
>Adam and Eve is a fairly tale with no basis in reality.
Are you saying that Cain and Abel were not produced by Adam and Eve's
Big Bang?
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741791 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 14:58 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:13 -0500, Renata <barskir [at] norealbox.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
>>Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>-snip-
>>
>>>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>>>inspection.
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>>>opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>>>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>>>world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>>>appears to be doing very well.
>>>
>>>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>>>much worse off, albeit their right.
>>>
>>
>>Golly gee - who knew that only white, 'murican, male types have the
>>right answers and know the only proper ways to run things.
>>
>>Renata
>>
>>PS IN a related note - just read an article on why conservatives are
>>never wrong. Wenever conservative policies crash and burn in the real
>>world, rather than rethink their ideas, conservatives simply redefine
>>the failures as un-conservative. Thus ole shrub is no longer
>>"conserbvative" because the country's drowning in debt (and he keeps
>>on filling the vat) under his watch.
>
>
> I don't agree that conservatives are always right except when they
> disagree with liberals. Abortion is an exception because the
> alternative is worse.
Life is worse than death.
Rich is better than poor.
Pride is good.
Interesting catechism. And by "interesting" I mean something else.
..
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741810 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 15:40 |
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:58:27 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:13 -0500, Renata <barskir [at] norealbox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
>>>Sullivan) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>-snip-
>>>
>>>>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>>>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>>>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>>>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>>>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>>>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>>>>inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>>>>opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>>>>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>>>>world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>>>>appears to be doing very well.
>>>>
>>>>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>>>>much worse off, albeit their right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Golly gee - who knew that only white, 'murican, male types have the
>>>right answers and know the only proper ways to run things.
>>>
>>>Renata
>>>
>>>PS IN a related note - just read an article on why conservatives are
>>>never wrong. Wenever conservative policies crash and burn in the real
>>>world, rather than rethink their ideas, conservatives simply redefine
>>>the failures as un-conservative. Thus ole shrub is no longer
>>>"conserbvative" because the country's drowning in debt (and he keeps
>>>on filling the vat) under his watch.
>>
>>
>> I don't agree that conservatives are always right except when they
>> disagree with liberals. Abortion is an exception because the
>> alternative is worse.
Life is worse than death.
Rich is better than poor.
Pride is good.
Anything is better than liberal except queer and that is probably a
tie.
Interesting catechism. And by "interesting" I mean something else.
You needed help.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741819 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 15:55 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:58:27 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:15:13 -0500, Renata <barskir [at] norealbox.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh
>>>>Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>-snip-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>>>>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>>>>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>>>>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>>>>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>>>>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>>>>>inspection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>>>>>opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>>>>>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>>>>>world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
>>>>>appears to be doing very well.
>>>>>
>>>>>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>>>>>much worse off, albeit their right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Golly gee - who knew that only white, 'murican, male types have the
>>>>right answers and know the only proper ways to run things.
>>>>
>>>>Renata
>>>>
>>>>PS IN a related note - just read an article on why conservatives are
>>>>never wrong. Wenever conservative policies crash and burn in the real
>>>>world, rather than rethink their ideas, conservatives simply redefine
>>>>the failures as un-conservative. Thus ole shrub is no longer
>>>>"conserbvative" because the country's drowning in debt (and he keeps
>>>>on filling the vat) under his watch.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree that conservatives are always right except when they
>>>disagree with liberals. Abortion is an exception because the
>>>alternative is worse.
>
>
>> Life is worse than death.
>> Rich is better than poor.
>> Pride is good.
> Anything is better than liberal except queer and that is probably a
> tie.
>
>>Interesting catechism. And by "interesting" I mean something else.
>
> You needed help.
>
You just said that abortion was better than the alternative.
And you're constantly crowing about your wealth and "success". (Unlike
Jonah, apparently, you can make the rutabaga grow. You're the cause of
what's happened in your life.)
This isn't incidental, Hugh. This is stuff you do every other post. Your
statement that abortion was better than the alternative broke the bank.
If you're actually the old man you say you are in your posts (I've never
been convinced, completely. I smell a rat sometimes.) then you've got a
foot in the grave and you'd better re-examine some of your beliefs
sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741846 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 17:35 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Tom Enright <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
> Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
> Darfur?
> No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
I think you have Matt mistaken for somebody else. Not that you
apparently even need him to finish your own conversations.
rich
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741847 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 17:44 |
|
On 12 Dec 2005 05:00:04 -0800, in talk.origins , "Tom Enright"
<freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> in
<1134392404.285423.267590 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>
>> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
>
>Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
>Darfur?
>
>No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
Yeah, if I don't respond while you are still composing the post I must
be a hypocrite. My comment about "True" religion in relationship to
Darfur is that I don't care about the religion of any of the
participants, I just don't happen to like genocide. You are free to
disagree.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741859 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 18:48 |
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:55:58 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> You needed help.
>>
>
>You just said that abortion was better than the alternative.
>
>And you're constantly crowing about your wealth and "success". (Unlike
>Jonah, apparently, you can make the rutabaga grow. )
I have never said one word about being wealthy; I have said
comfortable.
>You're the cause of what's happened in your life.
God gave me a little talent and I put my shoulder to the wheel.
>This isn't incidental, Hugh. This is stuff you do every other post. Your
>statement that abortion was better than the alternative broke the bank.
Abortion is better than coat hangers in the alley - a statement I have
made several times here. If you have forgotten you brain is broke,
too.
In fact just today I read a statement by the cowardly draft dodger
Bill Clinton with which I agree. "Abortion should be legal, safe and
rare."
As far as my posts not being unique you liberals constantly come up
with the same tired old crap and the number of ways to describe the
idiocy are limited
>
>If you're actually the old man you say you are in your posts (I've never
>been convinced, completely. I smell a rat sometimes.) then you've got a
>foot in the grave and you'd better re-examine some of your beliefs
>sooner rather than later.
From the moment we are born we have a foot in the grave so I've had a
foot there for 78 years, 18 days, 18 hours and 14 minutes as I type
this. The only belief I need to re-examine is why I let liberals and
trash cause me to be less a Christian than I should be. Christ thought
they were lost sheep - I think they are lost jackasses. See what I
mean!
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741860 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 18:48 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2005 09:06:34 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan escreveu:
> >> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >> ><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >> >>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >> >>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
> >> >>>>>Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
> >> >>>>><xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>[snip]
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>France has taxes, right?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
> >> >>>>>is a good model?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
> >> >>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
> >> >>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
> >> >>>days in existence?
> >> >>
> >> >>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
> >> >
> >> >So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
> >> >not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
> >> >a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
> >> >not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
> >> >could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
> >> >world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
> >> >inspection.
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >>
> >> First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
> >> opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
> >> out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
> >> world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
> >> appears to be doing very well.
> >
> >What's China got to do with it? The resolution of those problems made
> >the world better because black people and women could vote. That's a
> >big deal already
>
> Well, your denseness, China has an utter disregard for human rights
> and is doing very well. So human rights alone didn't make us great.
You're a very angry person.
I don't think China is doing that well. If it were people would be
trying to go there. And you don't see that. Maybe because economic
growth isn't everything. I don't think you'd be able to express your
views so freely if you were there
> >>
> >> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
> >> much worse off, albeit their right.
> >
> >Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
>
> You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
You don't seem to be grasping it though. If your interests are contrary
to the vast majority's interests you shouldn't be surprised if nobody
agrees with you. All you have left is your old hermit routine
> >>
> >> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
> >> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
> >> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
> >> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
> >> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
> >>
> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >
> >So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
> >live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
> >allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
> >desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
Strange... no coment here? I guess your eyes are blind to what
contradicts your scatological views
> >>
> >> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> >> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> >> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> >> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> >> made it better than the old simple one.
> >
> >where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
> >old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
> >all that you wrote above is recent?
>
> Please read again and not the word "more" is used frequently.
well, i think the threat of nuclear disaster for one has been greater
in the past than it is now. As for civil rights and harassment problems
that has to do with having recognized some civil rights which were not
recognized before. That's good. People need to fight for their rights
>
> >> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
> >> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
> >> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
> >> won some and lost some.
> >
> >The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
> >transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
> >rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
> >ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
>
> I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
> hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
> years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
> Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
> country. You people just can't handle life.
Liberals and the unions? It's the economy stupid. If the gross of
production is being transfered to places where the average income is
nowadays bellow what you earned decades ago and there is no subsequent
fall in the prices is it still the unions and liberals' fault. Or is it
just that the greedy bastards who run those companies don't care about
you or any other organic automaton running their errands.
What is your solution? Should the minimum wage be extinguished,
healthcare destroyed, child labour laws revoked? What if we start
working for nothing at all? That would be perfect right? No need to
outsource. Maybe you would like to see more sweatshops around. I'm sure
the number of drugies and bastards would diminish.
What I don't get is: are you masochistic, a sadist or just frustrated?
>
> >> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
> >> 8-)
> >>
> >> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
> >
> >One more sign of your confusion
>
> But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
> should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
Strange ... You seem to be the one complaining about everything
Chico
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741867 ] |
Mo, 12 Dezember 2005 19:06 |
|
Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
> On 12 Dec 2005 05:00:04 -0800, in talk.origins , "Tom Enright"
> <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> in
> <1134392404.285423.267590 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >Matt Silberstein, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
> >
> >> ROTFLMAO. Yep, arrogance, the true mark of the True Christian.
> >Any comments about people's "True" religion in relationship to
> >Darfur?
> >
> >No, I didn't think so. Hypocrite.
> Yeah, if I don't respond while you are still composing the post I must
> be a hypocrite. My comment about "True" religion in relationship to
> Darfur is that I don't care about the religion of any of the
> participants, I just don't happen to like genocide. You are free to
> disagree.
I see. One person's alleged arrogance allows you to describe all
Christians in a particular negative manner. OTOH, tens of
thousands of dead in Darfur and you want to play nuance and
mention how you don't care about a specific religion.
-Tom Enright
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.org
> http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> http://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mär 12 22:50:02 CET 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10212 Sekunden |
