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 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#331173

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:32:27 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:14:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist?  Can't be both.
>>>>
>>>> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other.
>>> 
>>>     Actually, to be really honest a monotheist is much closer to an
>>>     atheist
>>> than a Pagan is. You are only denying one less god than any atheist.
>>> You are deying all of those other gods just like any atheist is.
>>> 
>>> [deletia]
>>
>> Both pagans and atheists are wrong -- and the void created by atheists
>> is often filled by false religions, like paganism.
>>
>>
>    You're paranoid. You're really giving a small fringe far too much
>    credit.

When I speak of paganism, the main aspect of it I'm referring to is pre-
Christian "morality."

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

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

#331289

On 2015-11-05, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:32:27 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:14:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-04, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist?  Can't be both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other.
>>>> 
>>>>     Actually, to be really honest a monotheist is much closer to an
>>>>     atheist
>>>> than a Pagan is. You are only denying one less god than any atheist.
>>>> You are deying all of those other gods just like any atheist is.
>>>> 
>>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>> Both pagans and atheists are wrong -- and the void created by atheists
>>> is often filled by false religions, like paganism.
>>>
>>>
>>    You're paranoid. You're really giving a small fringe far too much
>>    credit.
>
> When I speak of paganism, the main aspect of it I'm referring to is pre-
> Christian "morality."
>

   It's only fundie Christians that think a lack of religion gives them free
reign to do anything they want. Most modern people are a little more evolved
than that.

   The idea of "pagan morality" is just fundie bigotry.

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

#330928

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 04:21:51 +0000, ronb wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:37:24 +0000, vallor wrote:
> 
>> Which is it -- Pagan or Atheist?  Can't be both.
> 
> Pagan and atheist society. One often paves the way for the other.

There is a very large undisclosed middle here.

How on Earth would "one often pave the way for the other"?

>  
>> Here's a riddle-me-this:
>> 
>> What would you say about a religion that personifies the "natural"
>> order of the Cosmos?  Because from c. 500BCE, the term "Logos" referred
>> to the "divine order" -- but then, in early Christianity, _Jesus
>> Christ_ was considered the personification of Logos.  (In the beginning
>> was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
>> 
>> Not "pagan" enough for you?  What about deification of great heroes of
>> a religion?  Hercules got this treatment -- and it could be argued, so
>> did Jesus.
>> 
>> Then you have the curious fact that anyone who tries to describe the
>> Trinity in rational terms is considered heretical, and has been ever
>> since the idea first came about.  It's the thing-that-shall-not-be-
>> defined. Don't believe me?  Ask your priest some day how many minds God
>> has.
>> 
>> And I can go on and on with this sort of discussion (and I have, in
>> other venues -- if it isn't obvious already).  I don't begrudge you
>> being a Roman Catholic, and I'll admit there are factions within the RC
>> church that do a lot of good in this world.  (Catholic Charities comes
>> to mind.)
>> 
>> Just don't pretend that Christianity (including the RC church) is
>> somehow "pure" from "pagan" influences.  Because when you scratch the
>> surface, you'll see that Christianity is a pretty close synthesis of
>> Hellenistic and Jewish thought, and there is a _lot_ of weirdness in
>> the early church's genesis.
> 
> Unlike some Protestants, Catholics don't believe everything the pagans
> taught or believed was wrong. After all, St. Paul makes it clear that
> God can be discovered via nature (Romans 1).

I fully understand your religious need to minimize Pagan influences on 
Christianity, but your hand-waving doesn't make them go away.


> As for "Logos" what pagans
> believed (in the abstract) hundreds of years before Christ is
> immaterial.

Of course it's material.  The idea was firmly in Hellenistic thought as a 
"force of nature", if you will.  AND CHRISTIANITY PERSONIFIED IT.

You _do_ know one hallmark of a pagan religion is personifying forces of 
nature, right?


> It's what Christ and the founders believed that matters to me.

And I'm telling you what they believed.

> After the birth of Christ we no longer had to deal with only the
> abstract, we now had the reality.
> St. John, when speaking of the Logos, applied it to
> Christ. You may (or may not) want to accept that.

First of all, you should realize the fourth Gospel was written way after 
the fact.

Secondly, I'm not "accepting" it or "not accepting" it, I'm pointing out 
how plainly the pagan tropes can be found in Christianity.  This is 
because you were trying to make some kind of delineation between "pagan" 
and "Christian", when they aren't that far apart at all.

None of that should be construed as me somehow saying you shouldn't be a 
Christian.  I'm just saying you should understand where it's coming from 
before making such black/white pronouncements in what is clearly a grey 
area.

[snipped non sequitur]

> As for abortion. No compromise on that. It's murder. Any premeditated
> killing of innocent life is, by definition, murder. I will admit,
> however, that a lot of mothers really don't understand what they are
> doing, but I don't see how the abortionist can ever plead ignorance.

There's a reason why abortion debates are considered "interminable" on 
the Usenet.  So I'm not going to discuss the matter any further.

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

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

#330935

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:24:20 +0000, vallor wrote:

> None of that should be construed as me somehow saying you shouldn't be a
> Christian.  I'm just saying you should understand where it's coming from
> before making such black/white pronouncements in what is clearly a grey
> area.

I don't have to worry about "grey areas." I have dogmatic pronouncements 
from the Church Christ founded and promised to guide until the end of the 
world.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

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

#330975

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:31:30 +0000, ronb wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:24:20 +0000, vallor wrote:
> 
>> None of that should be construed as me somehow saying you shouldn't be
>> a Christian.  I'm just saying you should understand where it's coming
>> from before making such black/white pronouncements in what is clearly a
>> grey area.
> 
> I don't have to worry about "grey areas."

Sure, if you keep your head in the sand.


> I have dogmatic pronouncements
> from the Church Christ founded and promised to guide until the end of
> the world.

Okay, now I'm starting to think your pulling my leg.  (Poe's Law, anyone?)

Seriously, if you're intractable about even your obvious 
misunderstandings of the RC church, how would you hope to discuss the 
more nuanced difficulties in its doctrine, such as (for just AN EXAMPLE) 
their approach to birth control?

There are good reasons to question such things, especially given the 
egregious track record of the RC church -- and no, it isn't because of 
"fads".

For another example:  an awakening human conscience regarding civil 
rights isn't a "fad".

And since you clearly didn't take my advice to read about the Santa Rosa 
Diocese, why don't you take a look at the kind of people you're putting 
your trust in:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Faithful-But-Fed-Up-Santa-Rosa-
Diocese-scandals-3304769.php

Darned straight there's good reason for lay oversight of the RC church.

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

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

#330976

On 05 Nov 2015 00:24:31 GMT, vallor wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:31:30 +0000, ronb wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:24:20 +0000, vallor wrote:
>> 
>>> None of that should be construed as me somehow saying you shouldn't be
>>> a Christian.  I'm just saying you should understand where it's coming
>>> from before making such black/white pronouncements in what is clearly a
>>> grey area.
>> 
>> I don't have to worry about "grey areas."
> 
> Sure, if you keep your head in the sand.
> 
> 
>> I have dogmatic pronouncements
>> from the Church Christ founded and promised to guide until the end of
>> the world.
> 
> Okay, now I'm starting to think your pulling my leg. 

Doubtful.
Looking at the size of you Scott Doty, he would need a front loader to pull
your leg.
You need to spend less time at the local McDonalds.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

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

#330985

On 2015-11-04 7:29 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On 05 Nov 2015 00:24:31 GMT, vallor wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:31:30 +0000, ronb wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:24:20 +0000, vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> None of that should be construed as me somehow saying you shouldn't be
>>>> a Christian.  I'm just saying you should understand where it's coming
>>>> from before making such black/white pronouncements in what is clearly a
>>>> grey area.
>>>
>>> I don't have to worry about "grey areas."
>>
>> Sure, if you keep your head in the sand.
>>
>>
>>> I have dogmatic pronouncements
>>> from the Church Christ founded and promised to guide until the end of
>>> the world.
>>
>> Okay, now I'm starting to think your pulling my leg. 
> 
> Doubtful.
> Looking at the size of you Scott Doty, he would need a front loader to pull
> your leg.
> You need to spend less time at the local McDonalds.

ROFL.

-- 
Slimer

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

#331167

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:24:31 +0000, vallor wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:31:30 +0000, ronb wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:24:20 +0000, vallor wrote:
>> 
>>> None of that should be construed as me somehow saying you shouldn't be
>>> a Christian.  I'm just saying you should understand where it's coming
>>> from before making such black/white pronouncements in what is clearly
>>> a grey area.
>> 
>> I don't have to worry about "grey areas."
> 
> Sure, if you keep your head in the sand.
> 
> 
>> I have dogmatic pronouncements from the Church Christ founded and
>> promised to guide until the end of the world.
> 
> Okay, now I'm starting to think your pulling my leg.  (Poe's Law,
> anyone?)
> 
> Seriously, if you're intractable about even your obvious
> misunderstandings of the RC church, how would you hope to discuss the
> more nuanced difficulties in its doctrine, such as (for just AN EXAMPLE)
> their approach to birth control?
> 
> There are good reasons to question such things, especially given the
> egregious track record of the RC church -- and no, it isn't because of
> "fads".
> 
> For another example:  an awakening human conscience regarding civil
> rights isn't a "fad".
> 
> And since you clearly didn't take my advice to read about the Santa Rosa
> Diocese, why don't you take a look at the kind of people you're putting
> your trust in:
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Faithful-But-Fed-Up-Santa-Rosa-
> Diocese-scandals-3304769.php
> 
> Darned straight there's good reason for lay oversight of the RC church.

You're conflating scandals with Doctrine. In the past posts you spoke of 
the Hellenic Logos -- I explained that St. John dealt with it. Since the 
Church defined Doctrine (which doesn't change) this is settled for 
Catholics.

None of this has anything to do with the scandals in the Catholic Church 
-- which, of course, I don't deny.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

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

#330950

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:27:03 PM UTC-7, vallor wrote:
(snip)

> There's a reason why abortion debates are considered "interminable" on 
> the Usenet.  So I'm not going to discuss the matter any further.

I believe that religion falls under that category, too... but then, usenet is the 'Valley of the Interminable' ;)

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

#330502

On 2015-11-02 4:39 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
> 
> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer 
> kills a pregnant woman, he's guilty of two murders. But when the mother 
> and an abortionist kills the baby, it's perfectly fine and acceptable.
> 
> Even sadder, it's against the law in this country to break an eagle's 
> egg, but perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child. This is the kind 
> of stupidity that happens when a society moves from Christianity and back 
> to paganism.

Once again, good post and I agree. Human life is not considered precious
in your country and mine and I find it especially gross how the people
advocating abortion or performing it find a kind of bizarre happiness
from doing what they do. The fact that they even have something called a
"partial birth abortion" is alarming.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

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

#330539

On 2015-11-02 7:23 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 3:52 PM, in article n18pae$771$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 4:39 PM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
>>>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
>>>
>>> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer
>>> kills a pregnant woman, he's guilty of two murders. But when the mother
>>> and an abortionist kills the baby, it's perfectly fine and acceptable.
>>>
>>> Even sadder, it's against the law in this country to break an eagle's
>>> egg, but perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child. This is the kind
>>> of stupidity that happens when a society moves from Christianity and back
>>> to paganism.
>>
>> Once again, good post and I agree. Human life is not considered precious
>> in your country and mine and I find it especially gross how the people
>> advocating abortion or performing it find a kind of bizarre happiness
>> from doing what they do. The fact that they even have something called a
>> "partial birth abortion" is alarming.
> 
> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?

One word: feminists.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

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

#330549

On 2015-11-02 7:51 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 5:39 PM, in article n18viv$v1u$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 7:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 3:52 PM, in article n18pae$771$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-02 4:39 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
>>>>>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer
>>>>> kills a pregnant woman, he's guilty of two murders. But when the mother
>>>>> and an abortionist kills the baby, it's perfectly fine and acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even sadder, it's against the law in this country to break an eagle's
>>>>> egg, but perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child. This is the kind
>>>>> of stupidity that happens when a society moves from Christianity and back
>>>>> to paganism.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, good post and I agree. Human life is not considered precious
>>>> in your country and mine and I find it especially gross how the people
>>>> advocating abortion or performing it find a kind of bizarre happiness
>>>> from doing what they do. The fact that they even have something called a
>>>> "partial birth abortion" is alarming.
>>>
>>> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?
>>
>> One word: feminists.
>>
> I welcome a link to someone doing as you say.

<http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/>


-- 
Charmed Tuna

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

#330563

On 2015-11-02 8:01 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 5:58 PM, in article n190nk$2is$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 7:51 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 5:39 PM, in article n18viv$v1u$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-02 7:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 3:52 PM, in article n18pae$771$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-11-02 4:39 PM, ronb wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:44:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   He's not confused. Protestants didn't go batshit crazy about abortion
>>>>>>>> until about 1980. Prior to 1980, that was reserved for Catholics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's "batshit crazy" to defend life? Strangely enough, if a murderer
>>>>>>> kills a pregnant woman, he's guilty of two murders. But when the mother
>>>>>>> and an abortionist kills the baby, it's perfectly fine and acceptable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even sadder, it's against the law in this country to break an eagle's
>>>>>>> egg, but perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child. This is the kind
>>>>>>> of stupidity that happens when a society moves from Christianity and back
>>>>>>> to paganism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, good post and I agree. Human life is not considered precious
>>>>>> in your country and mine and I find it especially gross how the people
>>>>>> advocating abortion or performing it find a kind of bizarre happiness
>>>>>> from doing what they do. The fact that they even have something called a
>>>>>> "partial birth abortion" is alarming.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?
>>>>
>>>> One word: feminists.
>>>>
>>> I welcome a link to someone doing as you say.
>>
>> <http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/>
>>
> OK, any reputable source? Heck, who are these people?

Members of the Austin, Texas Red Guards.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

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

#330585

On 2015-11-02 9:01 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 6:46 PM, in article n193i2$a62$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One word: feminists.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I welcome a link to someone doing as you say.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/>
>>>>
>>> OK, any reputable source? Heck, who are these people?
>>
>> Members of the Austin, Texas Red Guards.
> 
> Do we even know that?

It's in the video. Thanks for watching.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

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

#330632

On 2015-11-02 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/2/15, 7:51 PM, in article n197bb$ds5$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 9:01 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 6:46 PM, in article n193i2$a62$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One word: feminists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I welcome a link to someone doing as you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/>
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK, any reputable source? Heck, who are these people?
>>>>
>>>> Members of the Austin, Texas Red Guards.
>>>
>>> Do we even know that?
>>
>> It's in the video. Thanks for watching.
>>
> How do we know who the people are in the video? Where did it come from? It
> is on a conspiracy site known for making things up... it is not a reputable
> source.
> 
> And even if not, those people seem to be just saying things to piss off the
> camera man.

I find it striking how the "things that Infowars make up" end up
appearing on "reputable news sources" much later and only after it is
too late to stop them from happening. In the years that I've been
following them, they have been shown to be a lot more accurate and a lot
faster at reporting what's going on in the world. I will _always_ trust
an independent source over a corporate-sponsored brainwashing source
like what you rely on.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

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

#330688

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 6:39 AM, in article n1ad9u$fb1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 7:51 PM, in article n197bb$ds5$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-11-02 9:01 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:46 PM, in article n193i2$a62$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> One word: feminists.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I welcome a link to someone doing as you say.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> OK, any reputable source? Heck, who are these people?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Members of the Austin, Texas Red Guards.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do we even know that?
>>>> 
>>>> It's in the video. Thanks for watching.
>>>> 
>>> How do we know who the people are in the video? Where did it come from? It
>>> is on a conspiracy site known for making things up... it is not a reputable
>>> source.
>>> 
>>> And even if not, those people seem to be just saying things to piss off the
>>> camera man.
>> 
>> I find it striking how the "things that Infowars make up" end up
>> appearing on "reputable news sources" much later and only after it is
>> too late to stop them from happening. In the years that I've been
>> following them, they have been shown to be a lot more accurate and a lot
>> faster at reporting what's going on in the world. I will _always_ trust
>> an independent source over a corporate-sponsored brainwashing source
>> like what you rely on.
>> 
> 
> Infowars repeatedly makes idiotic predictions. Here, in literally seconds of
> searching: <https://youtu.be/5NH5b20QZmg>.
> 
> It is a farce site, as realistic as the Onion.
> 
At least he bothers to make predictions, unlike the cowardly Evolutionists
who apparently don't have enough faith in their own "science" to take a guess
at what we will evolve into, even with 100% knowledge of conditions that might
give rise to changes.

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

#330716

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 10:59 AM, in article sfheja80.aae@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> I find it striking how the "things that Infowars make up" end up
>>>> appearing on "reputable news sources" much later and only after it is
>>>> too late to stop them from happening. In the years that I've been
>>>> following them, they have been shown to be a lot more accurate and a lot
>>>> faster at reporting what's going on in the world. I will _always_ trust
>>>> an independent source over a corporate-sponsored brainwashing source
>>>> like what you rely on.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Infowars repeatedly makes idiotic predictions. Here, in literally seconds of
>>> searching: <https://youtu.be/5NH5b20QZmg>.
>>> 
>>> It is a farce site, as realistic as the Onion.
>>> 
>> At least he bothers to make predictions, unlike the cowardly Evolutionists
>> who apparently don't have enough faith in their own "science" to take a guess
>> at what we will evolve into, even with 100% knowledge of conditions that might
>> give rise to changes.
> 
> You keep pushing the claim that evolutionary science makes no predictions
> and that its key prediction should be about what humans are evolving into.
> 
> That is just beyond ignorant. It proves you know NOTHING of the science...
> and is really all that needs to be known when you speak on the topic. You
> are unbelievably ignorant about it.
> 
> I sincerely hope you are just trolling and not as ignorant as you portray
> yourself. Remember, I already pointed you to a search to find specific
> predictions from evolutionary science. If you are truly as ignorant as you
> claim you are so by choice.
> 

So Evolution Theory fails at its most basic task.  Got it.

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

#330744

On 2015-11-03 3:36 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 12:32 PM, in article sh3fa0.a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ... 
>>> You keep pushing the claim that evolutionary science makes no predictions
>>> and that its key prediction should be about what humans are evolving into.
>>>
>>> That is just beyond ignorant. It proves you know NOTHING of the science...
>>> and is really all that needs to be known when you speak on the topic. You
>>> are unbelievably ignorant about it.
>>>
>>> I sincerely hope you are just trolling and not as ignorant as you portray
>>> yourself. Remember, I already pointed you to a search to find specific
>>> predictions from evolutionary science. If you are truly as ignorant as you
>>> claim you are so by choice.
>>
>> So Evolution Theory fails at its most basic task.  Got it.
> 
> A task you have deemed as its basic task, with no evidence or reason, and
> even then failed to show it not doing.
> 
> You HAVE to be trolling at this point. You CANNOT be that stupid.


"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]

#330697

On 2015-11-03 12:26 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 6:39 AM, in article n1ad9u$fb1$2@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-02 10:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/2/15, 7:51 PM, in article n197bb$ds5$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-02 9:01 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:46 PM, in article n193i2$a62$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna"
>>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who is advocating abortion? Can you point to someone doing so?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One word: feminists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I welcome a link to someone doing as you say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.infowars.com/woman-confesses-i-kill-my-kids/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, any reputable source? Heck, who are these people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Members of the Austin, Texas Red Guards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we even know that?
>>>>
>>>> It's in the video. Thanks for watching.
>>>>
>>> How do we know who the people are in the video? Where did it come from? It
>>> is on a conspiracy site known for making things up... it is not a reputable
>>> source.
>>>
>>> And even if not, those people seem to be just saying things to piss off the
>>> camera man.
>>
>> I find it striking how the "things that Infowars make up" end up
>> appearing on "reputable news sources" much later and only after it is
>> too late to stop them from happening. In the years that I've been
>> following them, they have been shown to be a lot more accurate and a lot
>> faster at reporting what's going on in the world. I will _always_ trust
>> an independent source over a corporate-sponsored brainwashing source
>> like what you rely on.
>>
> 
> Infowars repeatedly makes idiotic predictions. Here, in literally seconds of
> searching: <https://youtu.be/5NH5b20QZmg>.
> 
> It is a farce site, as realistic as the Onion.

They're _predictions_, educated guesses at best. The mainstream media
routinely guesses who will win an election and they somehow don't lose
their credibility, why would Alex?

If it is a farce site, it wouldn't get things right as often as it does.
Your _posts_ are a farce, but not it.

-- 
Slimer

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

#330725

On 2015-11-03 2:10 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/3/15, 11:39 AM, in article n1aut6$mls$6@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>>>> I find it striking how the "things that Infowars make up" end up
>>>> appearing on "reputable news sources" much later and only after it is
>>>> too late to stop them from happening. In the years that I've been
>>>> following them, they have been shown to be a lot more accurate and a lot
>>>> faster at reporting what's going on in the world. I will _always_ trust
>>>> an independent source over a corporate-sponsored brainwashing source
>>>> like what you rely on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Infowars repeatedly makes idiotic predictions. Here, in literally seconds of
>>> searching: <https://youtu.be/5NH5b20QZmg>.
>>>
>>> It is a farce site, as realistic as the Onion.
>>
>> They're _predictions_, educated guesses at best. The mainstream media
>> routinely guesses who will win an election and they somehow don't lose
>> their credibility, why would Alex?
>>
>> If it is a farce site, it wouldn't get things right as often as it does.
>> Your _posts_ are a farce, but not it.
> 
> He really is on par with the Onion. Not sure how anyone can take him
> seriously. 

I take *you* seriously don't I?


-- 
Slimer

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

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

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

csiph-web