Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330005 > unrolled thread

Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-31 18:48 -0500
    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 02:45 +0000
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-11-01 03:10 -0600
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 04:17 +0000
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 21:34 -0700
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 10:45 -0600
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:47 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 16:16 -0600
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 00:53 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:48 -0600
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 08:52 +0100
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 08:50 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 15:37 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:55 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:27 +0000
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:05 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 15:46 -0700
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:37 -0600
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:04 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:06 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:09 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:25 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 00:34 +0100
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:09 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:41 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:54 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:51 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:07 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:24 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:38 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:49 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:46 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:16 -0800
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:51 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:49 -0600
    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 10:44 -0600
      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:39 +0000
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 14:49 -0700
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 16:13 -0600
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:07 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:52 -0600
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:27 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:37 +0000
              @ronb is fucked in the head, big time. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-03 03:14 -0800
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:27 -0600
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:23 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:58 -0500
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:16 -0600
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:33 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:31 -0600
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:40 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:21 +0000
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:54 -0500
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 09:56 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:16 -0800
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:14 -0600
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:36 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:32 -0600
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:50 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 10:04 -0600
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 22:24 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:31 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-05 00:24 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 19:29 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 19:47 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:45 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:02 -0800
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:52 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:39 -0500
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:58 -0500
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:46 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:51 -0500
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:39 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:59 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:32 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:06 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:39 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0700
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 19:28 -0700
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:35 -0500
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 09:44 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:02 -0800
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 10:50 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:06 -0800
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:09 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:34 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 10:15 -0800
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-04 09:40 -0800
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 12:44 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 13:38 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-04 09:19 -0700
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-04 16:40 -0700
        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere "vallor" <vallor@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 23:57 +0100
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 18:15 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 00:48 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-03 06:26 -0500
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:25 +0000
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:24 +0000
          Women need choices, not enslavement. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-02 17:39 -0800
            Re: Women need choices, not enslavement. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:56 -0500
          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:14 +0000
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 06:45 -0600
              Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:07 +0000
                Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere "JEDIDIAH" <nomad@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 06:47 +0100
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-04 06:45 -0600
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:01 +0000
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:42 -0800
                  Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:00 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-04 10:11 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:29 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-04 18:55 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:46 +0000
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:42 -0800
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 14:19 -0600
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:35 -0500
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:34 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-05 00:26 +0100
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:35 +0000
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:53 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:34 -0600
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:51 +0000
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:17 -0600
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-05 09:23 -0500
                    Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 22:45 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-04 19:37 -0600
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 21:25 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-05 12:58 -0700
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 17:39 -0500
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:38 +0000
                      Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 22:37 +0000
                        Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 00:23 +0000
                          Re: Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 00:30 +0000
                            Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 19:47 -0500
                          Re: Evolution and the RC church ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 04:15 +0000
                            Re: Evolution and the RC church vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-06 04:36 +0000
                              Re: Evolution and the RC church Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-06 06:04 -0500
                                Re: Evolution and the RC church chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-06 07:05 -0600
                                  Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 08:14 -0500
                                    Re: Evolution and the RC church Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-06 10:57 -0500
                                      Re: Evolution and the RC church Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-06 11:06 -0500
                              Re: Evolution and the RC church ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 01:16 +0000
                            Re: Evolution and the RC church GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:14 -0700
                              Re: Evolution and the RC church Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 16:47 -0700
                                Re: Evolution and the RC church Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:53 -0800
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-06 01:34 +0000
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 20:37 -0500
                          Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-06 09:13 +0100
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-06 09:39 -0600
                            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 09:19 -0700
                        Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-06 06:02 -0500
            Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 04:06 +0000

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#330005 — Re: Meta: Take your bigotry elsewhere

On 10/31/2015 3:21 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:05:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2015 8:49 AM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 02:22:18 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2015 6:44 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:07:40 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ronb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The best thing that ever happend to the Western World is when one
>>>>>>>> renegade shattered the power of the Catholic church forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, incessant warfare and the breaking up of Christendom was (is)
>>>>>>> wonderful!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was talking about Luther...
>>>>>
>>>>> I know who he was talking about. Luther, a monk who broke his vows of
>>>>> celibacy, poverty and obedience.
>>>>
>>>> Untrue.  He did none of those things until after he has left the
>>>> Catholic Church and was no longer one of their monks.
>>>
>>> He took sacred vows before God. Whether he left the Church before
>>> breaking those vows -- or not -- is moot. The fact remains that he
>>> broke those vows -- made to God, not to the Church.
>>>
>> It's not moot to "a monk who..."  As far as "Sacred Vows" goes, that's
>> something invented by the Catholic Church, it's not to be found in the
>> Bible.
>>
>> Martin Luther's job while he was a monk was correcting errors that had
>> crept into the Latin Bible, and it was those corrections that caused him
>> to quit being a monk.
>
> I can't believe this conversation is coming up in 2015.  Polemics against
> Martin Luther?  Really?
>
> It's almost as bad as the regressions in extremist protestantism where
> birth control is considered "sinful".

I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes 
birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for procreation.

> It is a fact that extremists don't consider themselves such, but instead,
> will consider everybody else -- including right-of-center moderates --
> "too liberal".

Lutherans aren't "extremists."  They have no ban on birth control that 
I'm aware of.

> But none of this has anything to do with Linux...

:-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#330037

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:

> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes
> birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
> procreation.

And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So, up 
until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330048

On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>
>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes
>> birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>> procreation.
>
> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So, up
> until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.

"Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and not 
being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it from 
"up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330275

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:

> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes
>>> birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>> procreation.
>>
>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So, up
>> until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
> 
> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and not
> being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it from
> "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.

That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're 
right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism. 

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330281

On 11/1/15, 9:17 PM, in article n16o42$it2$6@dont-email.me, "ronb"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
> 
>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes
>>>> birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>>> procreation.
>>> 
>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So, up
>>> until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>> 
>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and not
>> being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it from
>> "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.
> 
> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.

And Catholics do not all agree either. And each Pope has different ideas.
Heck, the current one even has a number of good ideas... hence the reason
why conservatives tend to hate him. :)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330371

On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that opposes
>>>> birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>>> procreation.
>>>
>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So, up
>>> until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>> 
>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and not
>> being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it from
>> "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.
>
> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're 
> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism. 
>

...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.

   The butthurt is strong in you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330471

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>>>> procreation.
>>>>
>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>> 
>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it
>>> from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.
>>
>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>
>>
> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
> 
>    The butthurt is strong in you.

No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to 
Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to be 
"protestants." It's in the very meaning of the term. Almost any 
Protestant will repeat (ignorantly and by rote) the same old BS about 
Catholics. This doesn't "just happen." It's in the culture of their 
religion.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330484

On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only for
>>>>>> procreation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>> 
>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be it
>>>> from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put on it.
>>>
>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>
>>>
>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>> 
>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>
> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to 
> Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to be 

    Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious wars
in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the divorce
unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains all of the family
resources.

    Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic) attitude that
needed to be purched from from Europe.

    Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you never 
would have existed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330547

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be
>>>>> it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put
>>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>> 
>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>
>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
>> Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to
>> be
> 
>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>     wars
> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains all
> of the family resources.
> 
>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>     attitude that
> needed to be purched from from Europe.
> 
>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>     never
> would have existed.

A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by your  
insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and, instead, 
fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic crank who 
won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with most cranks who 
try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what you're talking 
about. 

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330570

On 2015-11-03, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be
>>>>>> it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put
>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>> 
>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>
>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
>>> Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to
>>> be
>> 
>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>     wars
>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains all
>> of the family resources.
>> 
>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>     attitude that
>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>> 
>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>     never
>> would have existed.
>
> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by your  
> insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and, instead, 

    I read it. I think it's bullshit. So does any other "non-Catholic".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330798

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:48:17 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>  I read it. I think it's bullshit. So does any other "non-Catholic".

Easier to say "it's bullshit" then to respond to the points made, isn't 
it?

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330604

ronb wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s. So,
>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was evil.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ and
>>>>>> not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth control, be
>>>>>> it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you want to put
>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>> 
>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>
>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition to
>>> Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease to
>>> be
>> 
>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>     wars
>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains all
>> of the family resources.
>> 
>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>     attitude that
>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>> 
>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>     never
>> would have existed.
> 
> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by your
> insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and, instead,
> fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic crank who
> won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with most cranks who
> try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what you're talking
> about.
> 

What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330605

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:52:12 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> ronb wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s.
>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was
>>>>>>>> evil.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ
>>>>>>> and not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth
>>>>>>> control, be it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you
>>>>>>> want to put on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>>
>>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition
>>>> to Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease
>>>> to be
>>> 
>>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>>     wars
>>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains
>>> all of the family resources.
>>> 
>>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>>     attitude that
>>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>>> 
>>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>>     never
>>> would have existed.
>> 
>> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by
>> your insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and,
>> instead, fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic
>> crank who won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with
>> most cranks who try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what
>> you're talking about.
>> 
>> 
> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile

Yeah, that's productive.

Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.

Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy 
speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with 
him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
wife".

Note that you don't have to agree with someone to try to understand where 
they are coming from.

I know from being raised in the RC church that you aren't threatened with 
death anymore for going against the hierarchy -- no, they just threaten 
you with eternal damnation.

A doctrine, I might add, that could be called "spiritual terrorism".

So, yes, there is terror component in the Catholic church that Ron, being 
a devout Catholic, faces if he were to leave the rank and file.  It's 
probably not as strong as someone who was raised in the RC church, but it 
would still be foolish to ignore that factor.

I know polarized discussion is par for the course on the Usenet, but why 
not try having a conversation instead of launching firegrams back and 
forth?

-- 
 -v
Kernel:4.1.5-sd  Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2  Distro:Linux Mint 17.2 Rafaela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330669

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:52:12 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> ronb wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s.
>>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was
>>>>>>>>> evil.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ
>>>>>>>> and not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth
>>>>>>>> control, be it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you
>>>>>>>> want to put on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition
>>>>> to Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease
>>>>> to be
>>>> 
>>>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>>>     wars
>>>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>>>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains
>>>> all of the family resources.
>>>> 
>>>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>>>     attitude that
>>>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>>>> 
>>>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>>>     never
>>>> would have existed.
>>> 
>>> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by
>>> your insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and,
>>> instead, fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic
>>> crank who won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with
>>> most cranks who try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what
>>> you're talking about.
>>> 
>>> 
>> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile
> 
> Yeah, that's productive.
> 
> Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.
> 
> Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy 
> speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with 
> him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
> wife".
> 
> Note that you don't have to agree with someone to try to understand where 
> they are coming from.
> 
> I know from being raised in the RC church that you aren't threatened with 
> death anymore for going against the hierarchy -- no, they just threaten 
> you with eternal damnation.
> 
> A doctrine, I might add, that could be called "spiritual terrorism".
> 
> So, yes, there is terror component in the Catholic church that Ron, being 
> a devout Catholic, faces if he were to leave the rank and file.  It's 
> probably not as strong as someone who was raised in the RC church, but it 
> would still be foolish to ignore that factor.
> 
> I know polarized discussion is par for the course on the Usenet, but why 
> not try having a conversation instead of launching firegrams back and 
> forth?
> 

It's ok to call people "teabaggers" though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330687

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 8:37 AM, in article fshvc934fa.jg@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ... 
>>>> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile
>>> 
>>> Yeah, that's productive.
>>> 
>>> Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.
>>> 
>>> Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy
>>> speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with
>>> him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
>>> wife".
>>> 
>>> Note that you don't have to agree with someone to try to understand where
>>> they are coming from.
>>> 
>>> I know from being raised in the RC church that you aren't threatened with
>>> death anymore for going against the hierarchy -- no, they just threaten
>>> you with eternal damnation.
>>> 
>>> A doctrine, I might add, that could be called "spiritual terrorism".
>>> 
>>> So, yes, there is terror component in the Catholic church that Ron, being
>>> a devout Catholic, faces if he were to leave the rank and file.  It's
>>> probably not as strong as someone who was raised in the RC church, but it
>>> would still be foolish to ignore that factor.
>>> 
>>> I know polarized discussion is par for the course on the Usenet, but why
>>> not try having a conversation instead of launching firegrams back and
>>> forth?
>>> 
>> 
>> It's ok to call people "teabaggers" though.
>> 
> THAT is what you got from his post. That and nothing more.
> 
> Good grief.
> 
Yeah, his blatant hypocrisy sort of stands out.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330712

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 10:55 AM, in article afhu0ra.fp@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/3/15, 8:37 AM, in article fshvc934fa.jg@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ... 
>>>>>> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, that's productive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy
>>>>> speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with
>>>>> him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
>>>>> wife".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that you don't have to agree with someone to try to understand where
>>>>> they are coming from.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know from being raised in the RC church that you aren't threatened with
>>>>> death anymore for going against the hierarchy -- no, they just threaten
>>>>> you with eternal damnation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A doctrine, I might add, that could be called "spiritual terrorism".
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, yes, there is terror component in the Catholic church that Ron, being
>>>>> a devout Catholic, faces if he were to leave the rank and file.  It's
>>>>> probably not as strong as someone who was raised in the RC church, but it
>>>>> would still be foolish to ignore that factor.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know polarized discussion is par for the course on the Usenet, but why
>>>>> not try having a conversation instead of launching firegrams back and
>>>>> forth?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It's ok to call people "teabaggers" though.
>>>> 
>>> THAT is what you got from his post. That and nothing more.
>>> 
>>> Good grief.
>>> 
>> Yeah, his blatant hypocrisy sort of stands out.
> 
> Will you now state you will seek to never use derogatory terms for any group
> you find to be grossly offensive?
> 
 
Nope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330743

On 2015-11-03 3:31 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 12:27 PM, in article fhsdj0.3f@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> It's ok to call people "teabaggers" though.
>>>>>>
>>>>> THAT is what you got from his post. That and nothing more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, his blatant hypocrisy sort of stands out.
>>>
>>> Will you now state you will seek to never use derogatory terms for any group
>>> you find to be grossly offensive?
>>>
>>  
>> Nope.
> 
> Then you are a hypocrite. I do not use derogatory terms. The closest I might
> come is to speak of the herd, but even then I openly have asked them for a
> term they prefer other than their dishonest "advocate" term. I will not back
> their lies... and they are clearly a cult-like herd.

"The nature of religions is some in the religion will see their views as
the one and only truth, even in the absence of evidence, and will
condemn and harm others for merely disagreeing." - Snit

-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330751

On 11/03/15 10:14, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 8:37 AM, in article fshvc934fa.jg@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid>  wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's productive.
>>>
>>> Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.
>>>
>>> Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy
>>> speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with
>>> him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
>>> wife".
>>>
>>> Note that you don't have to agree with someone to try to understand where
>>> they are coming from.
>>>
>>> I know from being raised in the RC church that you aren't threatened with
>>> death anymore for going against the hierarchy -- no, they just threaten
>>> you with eternal damnation.
>>>
>>> A doctrine, I might add, that could be called "spiritual terrorism".
>>>
>>> So, yes, there is terror component in the Catholic church that Ron, being
>>> a devout Catholic, faces if he were to leave the rank and file.  It's
>>> probably not as strong as someone who was raised in the RC church, but it
>>> would still be foolish to ignore that factor.
>>>
>>> I know polarized discussion is par for the course on the Usenet, but why
>>> not try having a conversation instead of launching firegrams back and
>>> forth?
>>>
>>
>> It's ok to call people "teabaggers" though.
>>
> THAT is what you got from his post. That and nothing more.
>
> Good grief.
>
>
It looks like the linux advocates are eating their own lately.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330728

On 2015-11-03, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:52:12 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> ronb wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:16:14 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:45:36 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-11-02, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 03:10:44 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2015 9:45 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:48:35 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you're a bit confused.  It's the Catholic Church that
>>>>>>>>>> opposes birth control because their Popes ruled that sex is only
>>>>>>>>>> for procreation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this change came "officially" for Protestants in the 1930s.
>>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>> up until then, even Protestants taught that birth control was
>>>>>>>>> evil.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Protestants" have little in common other than worshiping Christ
>>>>>>>> and not being Catholic.  They have no common view on birth
>>>>>>>> control, be it from "up to 1930," "official," or any other tag you
>>>>>>>> want to put on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what they have in common -- opposing Catholicism. And you're
>>>>>>> right, there are many, many shades of Protestantism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...not "opposing Catholicism", merely being something else.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    The butthurt is strong in you.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. What makes Protestants "protestants" is their common opposition
>>>>> to Catholicism. If they ceased to oppose Catholicism they would cease
>>>>> to be
>>>> 
>>>>     Your attitude pretty much sums up why there needed to be religious
>>>>     wars
>>>> in Europe. You're like a psycho ex-wife that refuses to finalize the
>>>> divorce unless there is some long nasty prolonged trial that drains
>>>> all of the family resources.
>>>> 
>>>>     Yours is precisely the sort of theocratic (and narcissistic)
>>>>     attitude that
>>>> needed to be purched from from Europe.
>>>> 
>>>>     Again, without freedom of heresy there is no modern world and you
>>>>     never
>>>> would have existed.
>>> 
>>> A lot of words with little meaning, Jedidiah. What you're saying by
>>> your insults is that you refuse to read what I actually write and,
>>> instead, fall back on your empty rote platitudes. You're an atheistic
>>> crank who won't tolerate any other view -- and, as is the case with
>>> most cranks who try to pigeon hole their opponents, you don't know what
>>> you're talking about.
>>> 
>>> 
>> What you write is snittish bullshit. Lunatic bile
>
> Yeah, that's productive.
>
> Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.
>
> Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy 
> speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with 
> him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
> wife".

    Actually, that metaphor was meant to describe the Church.

[deletia]

    The religious wars of Europe were not caused by the fact that there were
some that chose to dissent or "leave the flock". Those religious wars were 
caused by an inability to live and let live. People with contrary ideas or 
just a desire to "get away" were not allowed to. The Church had to keep Europe 
under it's thumb.

    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330742

On 2015-11-03 3:29 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 12:37 PM, in article slrnn3i37o.nca.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's productive.
>>>
>>> Absolutely brimming with mutual respect and attempts at understanding.
>>>
>>> Look, the guy could be Bill Donahue himself, but he's still a guy
>>> speaking his mind.  No, he shouldn't be calling people who disagree with
>>> him "cranks", nor should Jed be referring to him as "like a psycho ex-
>>> wife".
>>
>>     Actually, that metaphor was meant to describe the Church.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>>     The religious wars of Europe were not caused by the fact that there were
>> some that chose to dissent or "leave the flock". Those religious wars were
>> caused by an inability to live and let live. People with contrary ideas or
>> just a desire to "get away" were not allowed to. The Church had to keep Europe
>> under it's thumb.
> 
> The nature of religions is some in the religion will see their views as the
> one and only truth, even in the absence of evidence, and will condemn and
> harm others for merely disagreeing.

Kind of like what you do.


-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web