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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #8752

-- The Cancer of Faggotry

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

I’ve heard recently that Sydney radio shock jock, Karl Sandilands is 
suffering from shrinking testicles. You ain't seen nothing until you've 
had some fat queen sado-masochistic faggot actor as a gym junkie from 
Sydney going troppo at being called a plump frump.

Does your dictionary make haughty a lawful alternative to skanking 
whore, or self conceit a synonym for your shit?

Brad (bradvk2qq@gmail.com): “W[hat] T[he] F[uck] are you talking about?”

atec77 (atec77@hotmail.com): “No one know[s] or cares. It is after all 
just dork talk!”

dolf: “Karl you’re a chook.”

Ish (m@g.net): “I thought so. What’s the matter? Afraid of women?”

Denis / Ish (denis.mattg@yahoo.de / ish.mattg@yahoo.de): “Is exactly 
what I am”

Ish (xm@c.net): “You can’t consider a faggot like you a ‘woman’.

Is it really beyond you to believe a woman can like baseball and not 
necessarily want to read about your obsessions in a baseball group? 
Chauvinist!”.

denis (mrwilson6982@yahoo.de): “You can't consider a faggot tranny like 
you a ‘woman’.”

dolf: “There’s only one queen and that’s Madonna bitch.”

Ishtar (ishtarnec@gmail.com): “Fucking frog. Awful funny you show up 
when the trolls do.”

dolf: “Qu'est-ce? Aren’t you just the trolley dolly from the women's 
hospital.” [B-Day Song (feature M.I.A) Madonna MDNA ℗ 2012 Boy Toy Inc.]

What is a Nation? (Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?) is a 1882 essay by French 
historian Ernst Renan (1823–1892), known for the statements that a 
nation is "a daily referendum", and that nations are based as much on 
what the people jointly forget, as what they remember. It is frequently 
quoted or anthologized in works of history or political science 
pertaining to nationalism. [Wikipedia 2012: Qu’est-ce?]

M (storm@c.net): “What is this doing in a baseball group? Nobody here 
gives a damn for your opinions, even that Rosecomm idiot plonked you. 
Too bad...he might have said ‘Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame 
playing with homosexual-sex-obsessed dee-nis's pecker.’ Now THAT would 
be an appropriate job for him.”

Barry OGrady (atheist@hotmail.com.au): “You don't understand yourself at 
all. You think it clever not to punctuate. What are trying to prove?

You probably think its cool to wear a baseball cap on backwards. You 
conform to what you think is non conforming.”

Old Jinglebollocks (old.jinglebollocks@gmail.com): “Doesn't matter any more.

Can't be bothered even to read what you bums are writing on usenet.

Fuck ye, the whole damned lot o' ye.”

I thought Jamie Rowe was discriminatory in the manner by which he 
undertook his seeking of housemates in Liverpool Street with Gay 
Share-space was indulgently disrespectful of the person's dignity as 
autonomic right. That collectively these radio personalities are by 
their fascist dog commentary, not mindful of duty to State.

On 28/03/12 6:22 AM, denis wrote:
> In Leviticus 18:22 we read "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
> womankind it is abomination." Also in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also
> lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
> committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their
> blood shall be upon them." In Deuteronomy 23:17 we read "There shall
>  be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons
> of Israel.".
>
> Its extremely clear what our Father in heaven has to say about
> homosexuals. Other Old Testament verses on the subject can be found
> in 1 Kings 14:24 and 15:12, II Kings 23:7, Isaiah 3:9 and Jeremiah
> 23:14. There are more verses in the Bible on this subject, but I
> think I have made my point. Some say the New Testament does not
> address homosexuality at all. So, let us read 1 Corinthians 6:9 "No
> ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
> not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." Also in Jude 7,
> Romans 1:22-32 and 1 Timothy 1:10. By the way, for those that don't
> know the meaning of the word effeminate it means a man that takes on
> the characteristics of a woman.
>
> So, as you can see, if any Judeo-Christian minister does not preach
> against homosexuality, he is a liar and a deceiver. Homosexuality,
> like a cancer, must be cut out of our society or it will grow until
> it kills the body, like a cancer.

On 28/03/12 4:27 PM, M wrote:
> "denis"<mrwilson695563465346@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:733dcc53-77a6-4745-b211-4c65b6cb7882@ur9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
>What is this doing in a baseball group? Nobody here gives a damn for
> your opinions, even that Rosecomm idiot plonked you. Too bad...he
> might have said "Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame playing with
> homosexual sex-obsessed dee-nis's pecker." Now THAT would be an
> appropriate job for him.
>
>

The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age recently launched his new 
book ‘Religion for Atheists’ and no atheists are interested in talking 
about it, including all the ones who eagerly embraced Dawkin's even more 
enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he claims ‘came into being’ (sic).

 From his book Launch: "A few years ago it struck me that there is a 
resource that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation, and an ethical 
framework, and it's rather fascinating and has dominated the mental 
landscape of human beings for thousands of years I'm thinking, of 
course, of religion.

And the problem is, I'm an atheist.”

And it is Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) who was perhaps the greatest 
philosopher of the 20th century and we are challenged to comprehend how 
he could have been a life-long Nazi. [McCumber 1999:1] From his 
inception in 1927 with his magnum opus: “Being and Time” he clearly 
established himself as a foremost and important philosopher, but later 
betrayed his philosophical contributions and finished up until his death 
in 1976 as a contemptible apologist, first for Nazism and later for himself.

That his work on “Being and Time”, for all its achievements, is no 
innocent piece of philosophy. Although some have argued that it may not 
have directly encouraged Nazism, it clearly leaves Heidegger open to 
such an accusation. For in “Being and Time”, intelligibility is subject 
to the world: I can understand nothing that is not within the horizons 
of my world. Escape from this world is achievable not through critical 
reason but only in a mute and mystified “resolve”. [McCumber 1999:3]

Yet for much of the Western world, the difficulty of Heidegger's thought 
was for many years held to be almost insuperable in the medium of a 
foreign language, especially English. That this opinion is no longer so 
widely held can be seen both from the rapidly increasing number of 
translations of Heidegger's works and from the interest of a growing 
readership. There are signs moreover, that as a preeminent thinker of 
our age, Heidegger may be of interest to many who do not claim to have a 
wide knowledge of traditional metaphysics or whose concern with him may 
not be primarily philosophical at all.

Such readers have a certain advantage in bringing an open mind to a new 
problem, but they also have special difficulties in grappling with 
Heidegger. [King 2001:xviii]

However as Gadamer (1976) suggests when the layman wonders what 
philosophy really is, he has the idea that philosophising means 
defining, and taking responsibility for the need to define, the concepts 
in which all men think as homo[ios] sapien[tal]. Since as a rule we do 
not see this happen, we have helped ourselves by means of a doctrine of 
implicit definition.

In reality, however, such a “doctrine” is a mere verbalism as is the 
neologism starting with the German word: Dasein--which is not another 
name for ‘consciousness’, ’subject’, or ‘human being’. Heidegger 
introduces a vocabulary that challenges the reader [Stambaugh 
2010:xviii]. To say nothing of the Hebrew word: Dashen {(#4 - Daleth; 
#300 - Shin; #50 - Nun = #354 / #390 as H1878) specifically to anoint; 
figuratively to satisfy; denominatively (from H1880 ) to remove (fat) 
ashes (of sacrifices):—accept, anoint, take away the (receive) ashes 
(from), make (wax) fat}. For to call a definition implicit obviously 
means one finally comes to notice, on the basis of a number of sentences 
that someone has spoken. And he or she was thinking something 
unambiguous by means of using a concept. In this respect, philosophers 
are no different from other men, for other men too are in the habit of 
thinking definite things and avoiding contradictions. The lay opinion 
appealed to here is in fact dominated by the doctrine that universals or 
general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality as 
nominalistic tradition of recent centuries, in considering linguistic 
reproduction as a kind of application of signs. It is obvious that 
artificial signs need an organisation and arrangement that excludes any 
ambiguity. Thus the demand arises that the illusionary problems of 
“metaphysics” must be unmasked by establishing the univocal use of 
language. [Gadamer 1971:125-126]

In his scheme to refresh philosophy, Heidegger, like Hegel (1770-1831), 
draws upon the earthy roots of his language and dialect. So a promising 
way of achieving this refreshment would be the exercise of translating 
“Being and Time” into the Anglo-Saxon language. Or perhaps into the 
Welsh or Gaelic idioms. Or for that matter, into Hebrew with its 
association to the earliest Semitic tongue and most probable origin of 
language. [King 2001:xv]

How then did Heidegger's publication in 1927 of “Being and Time”, and in 
1929 with his provocative book on Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” in 
his treatise on “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” or his 1939 
lectures: “On the Essence of Language: The Metaphysics of Language and 
Essencing of the Word” in relation to the German Lutheran theologian and 
philosopher Johann Herder's 1772 treatise: “On the Origin of Language”, 
lead to the German Reich policy on the genocidal annihilation and 
nullification of Judaism as the absence of being? Herder (1744-1803) was 
the progenitor of the volkgeist (“Spirit of the people”) conception and 
had advanced a cultural superiority by the injunction: “Spew out the 
ugly slime of the Seine. Speak German, O You German.” Yet whilst he 
supported the French Revolution (1789–1799), his anti-authoritarianism, 
anti-militarism, and borderless humanitarianism values would generally 
have caused him to find the subsequent acts of political domination, war 
and empire which make up the vast bulk of these “great” deeds and events 
of history as not just morally unedifying, but morally repugnant. 
[Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2007]

Heidegger was struggling to distance his thought from the prevailing 
neo-Kantian tendency in German philosophical circles of the time, and 
this resulted in a highly original interpretation of Kant (1724-1804). 
 From the standpoint of the development of Heidegger’s own endeavour, 
his book: “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” is of pivotal importance 
because it takes up and extends a number of themes suggested in “Being 
and Time”, in particular the problem of how Heidegger proposed to enact 
his “destruction” of the metaphysical tradition and of what role his 
reading of Kant would play in that project. It’s this problematic about 
Kant’s Categories as it relates to Being in traditional metaphysics and 
the phenomenon of time which accounts for what some have called the 
“violence” of Heidegger’s interpretation as even he unequivocally 
acknowledged in the preface to his 1950 edition. [Taft 1997:xii, xx]

Heidegger asks, “What is the human being?” If I speak, so therefore I 
am. It is through and in the being, human language comes into being and 
vice versa; in the coming into being of language the human being “is” 
the human being. [Gregory 2004:87] How then was any one of Jewish 
descent considered as less than human after the 7 November 1938 
assassination of Ernst vom Rath, the third Secretary of the German 
Embassy in Paris by his reputed 17yo homosexual companion, a German born 
Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan. As the impetus for Kristallnacht 
within days following and the beginning of the Final Solution as 
Holocaust--Where was God? I do not desire to participate in the attitude 
of silence as others have promulgated to this very time, and neither do 
I consider subterfuge in the use of language as the only applicable and 
acceptable answer to such questions: “Vous êtes sur un site francophone. 
Yez la politesse et la correction de vous exprimer en français.”

This then relates to a little anecdote about my activities as timely 
actions over the siege in Toulouse, France on 21-23 March 2012 in 
relation to the earlier massacre of three paratroopers (ethnic and 
muslim), school children and a Jewish Rabbi by an Islamic extremist. 
Whilst enjoying a walk, I made some appraisals of the most probable 
cause of the event before it was disclosed as public news. In that the 7 
murders which occurred as terrorist activity were in part being 
attributed to abuses as starvation of Palestinian children due to an 
inability by the menfolk to pursue their livelihoods because of a 
confiscation of their tools of trade at border crossings in Israel. And 
as a consequence of my comments, as actions of goodwill and regard to 
European friends, I found my words as ideas (unity of being, dignity and 
discrimination by the State versus the animalistic behaviour of the 
perpetrators) being uttered from the mouths of the French President 
Nicolas Sarkozy and a Jewish Rabbi in Israel which were subsequently 
reported on the news.

In querying the political motive of UNICEF workers in the street that 
same day, I remarked that not even Kofi Annan would be able to take the 
“King” of Syria (President Bashar al-Assad) out of my hands--and indeed 
that is so today as Russia, China and America are all indebted to my 
intellectual property associated to governance.

There was in response to my calculated statements as provocations made 
towards the Republic of France (on alt.France) in their time of great 
need, an attempt by some person (René Groumal) without any remorse or 
apology, to falsely and slanderously characterise my public Internet 
statements as being fascist or neo-nazi. I am categorically neither. The 
source of my ideology as autonomic doctrines of unity, co-operation, 
freedom and democracy are not derived from Adolf Hitler. But that my 
prophet is Moses and therefore I am not anti-Semitic.

Governance (religion), angels and time, set in stone: Angel Solar Watch 
(replica) 1582 CE Chartres Cathedral, France

- dolf
- http://www.grapple369.com/Being.html

Back to comp.sys.mac.apps | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Cancer of Faggotry denis <mrwilson695563465346@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 12:22 -0700
  Re: The Cancer of Faggotry "M" <storm@c.net> - 2012-03-28 01:27 -0400
  Re: The Cancer of Faggotry pfjames2000@googlemail.com (Peter) - 2012-03-28 08:16 +0100
  -- The Cancer of Faggotry dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 08:58 +1100
    Re: -- The Cancer of Faggotry Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2012-03-30 09:44 +1100
      Re: -- The Cancer of Faggotry dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-30 10:02 +1100
        Re: -- The Cancer of Faggotry "M" <storm@c.net> - 2012-03-30 23:37 -0400
          -- The Cancer of Faggotry dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-31 19:31 +1100

csiph-web