| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2007 06:41:19 PM |
| Object: |
Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
March 14, 2007
Why are atheists the last group in America that it is socially acceptable to
hate?
This question came to mind yesterday when I read an anti-atheist column in
my morning newspaper, the Albany Times Union.
The column, "Nobody Here But us Believers", was written by Suzanne Fields, a
syndicated columnist for the Washington Times (a right-wing newspaper owned
by the Moonie religion). The column starts with the insulting lie that
"there are no atheists in foxholes" and then proceeds with almost every
other anti-atheist canard in the religious right arsenal. Besides attacking
the non-religious, the column's main aim seems to be to smear religious
Democrats such as the Clintons as insincere in their religiosity. (If only
the Democrats were as irreligious as the Christian right claims!)
My initial reaction, after choking on my cornflakes, was to plan a letter to
the editor taking issue with the arguments in the column. But then I got to
thinking about why my mainstream local paper -- whose moderate and decent
editors are personally friendly to me -- would publish hate speech against
me and my kind. Paradoxically, we freethinkers are so into reasoned debate
that we don't see when the line is crossed from acceptable argument to
unacceptable defamation. Sure we write great letters to the editor, but we
accept the legitimacy of the debate, instead of saying hate-mongering is
simply not acceptable in the mainstream media -- the media you pay for with
your subscription or viewership.
My local paper would never publish a column that vilified Jews or libeled
all Muslims. First of all they would immediately see it as hate-mongering
not journalism, and secondly they know that they could not get away with it.
All hell would break loose. Not only would the offended groups condemn and
boycott the paper, but decent-minded mainstream readers would condemn the
paper too. Organizations would organize letter writing campaigns and
boycotts against the hate-mongering writer and the newspapers that carried
the offending column.
This doesn't seem to happen when it's atheists attacked. I think it's time
we changed that.
Read Suzanne Fields' syndicated column here or the original column (very
slightly different) here in the Washington Times. Check your local papers to
see if they reprinted it (when IHS called Creators Syndicate, the group that
syndicates the column, one employee refused to tell us which newspapers
carry it and another employee never returned our calls.)
Write to the offending newspapers telling them it is unacceptable to promote
such bigotry. Or write to the Washington Times or any other paper that
published it. Share the column with your freethinking friends and
colleagues. Get them to protest it. Don't resort to intolerant language
yourself. Tell the paper why Fields' hate-mongering insults and harms you
and the significant part of their readership who share your lack of belief
in gods. If you were an atheist in a foxhole, let them know.
This is good opportunity for a letter to the editor educating readers about
their fellow Americans who do not believe in a god. But in addition to
letter for publication, we need to protest directly to the editors about
including such a bigoted column in the first place. Tell them to stop
publishing this columnist. If you are mad enough to want to cancel your
subscription, let them know.
Here is a letter to the editor that I submitted for publication in the
Albany Times Union. You may use this as a guide in writing your own letters.
Times Union Should Stop Promoting Hatred
I am dismayed to see the Times Union promoting hatred against the
non-religious.
Suzanne Fields' commentary, (Nobody Here But us Believers, Tuesday, March
13) starts off with the insulting falsehood that "there are no atheists in
foxholes" and then descends into slurs and hatemongering against the
non-religious, falsely blaming atheists for everything from Nazism to
"touchy feely mumbo jumbo." I can only imagine how my colleagues at the
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers will react to these
attacks, especially the World War II veterans who recall that Nazi soldiers
had "Gott Mit Uns" ("God With Us") on their uniforms.
Sadly, surveys show Fields is not alone in her bigotry. Atheists are the
most distrusted belief group in the US, according to the 2006 American
Mosaic Project. A Gallup survey just last month revealed that a majority of
Americans would never vote for a well-qualified atheist candidate for
president.
Despite all this intolerance, the non-religious are the fastest growing
belief group in the US, doubling to more than 29 million between 1990 and
2000, according to the American Religious Identification Survey. In fact,
last year's Pew Forum survey on "Generation Next" revealed that one in five
18 to 25 year olds say they have no religious identification or are atheist
or agnostic.
So why are Rex Smith and the editors of the Times Union adding to the
atmosphere of hatred and discrimination against a significant part of their
readership? They are well aware of the positive work of the Institute for
Humanist Studies and other nonreligious groups in the Capital District. If
Suzanne Fields had replaced the word "atheist" with "Jew" or "Muslim" I
cannot believe the editors would have taken more than a few seconds before
deciding not to publish it and perhaps to drop this ignorant and intolerant
columnist forever from their pages.
Matt Cherry, Executive Director
Institute for Humanist Studies
Matt Cherry is the executive director of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
He is the author of Introduction to Humanism at the Continuum of Humanist
Education, the online school of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 01:21:58 AM |
|
|
In article <4qCdnVSwDKCIFWXYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
March 14, 2007
Why are atheists the last group in America that it is socially acceptable to
hate?
This question came to mind yesterday when I read an anti-atheist column in
my morning newspaper, the Albany Times Union.
The column, "Nobody Here But us Believers", was written by Suzanne Fields, a
syndicated columnist for the Washington Times (a right-wing newspaper owned
by the Moonie religion). The column starts with the insulting lie that
"there are no atheists in foxholes" and then proceeds with almost every
other anti-atheist canard in the religious right arsenal. Besides attacking
the non-religious, the column's main aim seems to be to smear religious
Democrats such as the Clintons as insincere in their religiosity. (If only
the Democrats were as irreligious as the Christian right claims!)
Sure and Mark Foley, Randy ('Duke') Cunningham, Scooter Libby, Bush,
Cheney, Rove, Alberto Gonzales, et al. exemplify such fine 'Christian'
values.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 01:37:07 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-74FB25.23215814032007@news.giganews.com...
In article <4qCdnVSwDKCIFWXYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
March 14, 2007
Why are atheists the last group in America that it is socially acceptable
to
hate?
This question came to mind yesterday when I read an anti-atheist column
in
my morning newspaper, the Albany Times Union.
The column, "Nobody Here But us Believers", was written by Suzanne
Fields, a
syndicated columnist for the Washington Times (a right-wing newspaper
owned
by the Moonie religion). The column starts with the insulting lie that
"there are no atheists in foxholes" and then proceeds with almost every
other anti-atheist canard in the religious right arsenal. Besides
attacking
the non-religious, the column's main aim seems to be to smear religious
Democrats such as the Clintons as insincere in their religiosity. (If
only
the Democrats were as irreligious as the Christian right claims!)
Sure and Mark Foley, Randy ('Duke') Cunningham, Scooter Libby, Bush,
Cheney, Rove, Alberto Gonzales, et al. exemplify such fine 'Christian'
values.
Hey, they had to exemplify something, didn't they? And,
admitting that they are all small time crooks in big time
jobs would be frowned upon at the Old Boys Club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 06:28:59 PM |
|
|
In article <nvGdnQv6HMEYdGXYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-74FB25.23215814032007@news.giganews.com...
In article <4qCdnVSwDKCIFWXYnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
March 14, 2007
Why are atheists the last group in America that it is socially acceptable
to
hate?
This question came to mind yesterday when I read an anti-atheist column
in
my morning newspaper, the Albany Times Union.
The column, "Nobody Here But us Believers", was written by Suzanne
Fields, a
syndicated columnist for the Washington Times (a right-wing newspaper
owned
by the Moonie religion). The column starts with the insulting lie that
"there are no atheists in foxholes" and then proceeds with almost every
other anti-atheist canard in the religious right arsenal. Besides
attacking
the non-religious, the column's main aim seems to be to smear religious
Democrats such as the Clintons as insincere in their religiosity. (If
only
the Democrats were as irreligious as the Christian right claims!)
Sure and Mark Foley, Randy ('Duke') Cunningham, Scooter Libby, Bush,
Cheney, Rove, Alberto Gonzales, et al. exemplify such fine 'Christian'
values.
Hey, they had to exemplify something, didn't they? And,
admitting that they are all small time crooks in big time
jobs would be frowned upon at the Old Boys Club.
Isn't strange how when most crooks get caught, the suddenly 'get
religion'?
I agree that the Old Boys Club looks down on small time crooks. To get
in you have to be a big time crook.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 06:55:07 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 7:41 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
And that is another form of intolerance.
Everything should be tolerated intolerance included.
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
March 14, 2007
Why are atheists the last group in America that it is socially acceptable to
hate?
This question came to mind yesterday when I read an anti-atheist column in
my morning newspaper, the Albany Times Union.
The column, "Nobody Here But us Believers", was written by Suzanne Fields, a
syndicated columnist for the Washington Times (a right-wing newspaper owned
by the Moonie religion). The column starts with the insulting lie that
"there are no atheists in foxholes" and then proceeds with almost every
other anti-atheist canard in the religious right arsenal. Besides attacking
the non-religious, the column's main aim seems to be to smear religious
Democrats such as the Clintons as insincere in their religiosity. (If only
the Democrats were as irreligious as the Christian right claims!)
My initial reaction, after choking on my cornflakes, was to plan a letter to
the editor taking issue with the arguments in the column. But then I got to
thinking about why my mainstream local paper -- whose moderate and decent
editors are personally friendly to me -- would publish hate speech against
me and my kind. Paradoxically, we freethinkers are so into reasoned debate
that we don't see when the line is crossed from acceptable argument to
unacceptable defamation. Sure we write great letters to the editor, but we
accept the legitimacy of the debate, instead of saying hate-mongering is
simply not acceptable in the mainstream media -- the media you pay for with
your subscription or viewership.
My local paper would never publish a column that vilified Jews or libeled
all Muslims. First of all they would immediately see it as hate-mongering
not journalism, and secondly they know that they could not get away with it.
All hell would break loose. Not only would the offended groups condemn and
boycott the paper, but decent-minded mainstream readers would condemn the
paper too. Organizations would organize letter writing campaigns and
boycotts against the hate-mongering writer and the newspapers that carried
the offending column.
This doesn't seem to happen when it's atheists attacked. I think it's time
we changed that.
Read Suzanne Fields' syndicated column here or the original column (very
slightly different) here in the Washington Times. Check your local papers to
see if they reprinted it (when IHS called Creators Syndicate, the group that
syndicates the column, one employee refused to tell us which newspapers
carry it and another employee never returned our calls.)
Write to the offending newspapers telling them it is unacceptable to promote
such bigotry. Or write to the Washington Times or any other paper that
published it. Share the column with your freethinking friends and
colleagues. Get them to protest it. Don't resort to intolerant language
yourself. Tell the paper why Fields' hate-mongering insults and harms you
and the significant part of their readership who share your lack of belief
in gods. If you were an atheist in a foxhole, let them know.
This is good opportunity for a letter to the editor educating readers about
their fellow Americans who do not believe in a god. But in addition to
letter for publication, we need to protest directly to the editors about
including such a bigoted column in the first place. Tell them to stop
publishing this columnist. If you are mad enough to want to cancel your
subscription, let them know.
Here is a letter to the editor that I submitted for publication in the
Albany Times Union. You may use this as a guide in writing your own letters.
Times Union Should Stop Promoting Hatred
I am dismayed to see the Times Union promoting hatred against the
non-religious.
Suzanne Fields' commentary, (Nobody Here But us Believers, Tuesday, March
13) starts off with the insulting falsehood that "there are no atheists in
foxholes" and then descends into slurs and hatemongering against the
non-religious, falsely blaming atheists for everything from Nazism to
"touchy feely mumbo jumbo." I can only imagine how my colleagues at the
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers will react to these
attacks, especially the World War II veterans who recall that Nazi soldiers
had "Gott Mit Uns" ("God With Us") on their uniforms.
Sadly, surveys show Fields is not alone in her bigotry. Atheists are the
most distrusted belief group in the US, according to the 2006 American
Mosaic Project. A Gallup survey just last month revealed that a majority of
Americans would never vote for a well-qualified atheist candidate for
president.
Despite all this intolerance, the non-religious are the fastest growing
belief group in the US, doubling to more than 29 million between 1990 and
2000, according to the American Religious Identification Survey. In fact,
last year's Pew Forum survey on "Generation Next" revealed that one in five
18 to 25 year olds say they have no religious identification or are atheist
or agnostic.
So why are Rex Smith and the editors of the Times Union adding to the
atmosphere of hatred and discrimination against a significant part of their
readership? They are well aware of the positive work of the Institute for
Humanist Studies and other nonreligious groups in the Capital District. If
Suzanne Fields had replaced the word "atheist" with "Jew" or "Muslim" I
cannot believe the editors would have taken more than a few seconds before
deciding not to publish it and perhaps to drop this ignorant and intolerant
columnist forever from their pages.
Matt Cherry, Executive Director
Institute for Humanist Studies
Matt Cherry is the executive director of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
He is the author of Introduction to Humanism at the Continuum of Humanist
Education, the online school of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 06:13:49 PM |
|
|
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
news:1173916507.568267.153780@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 14, 7:41 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
And <SLAP>
I won't tolerate you talking. Shaddup.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds ***** sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 07:31:34 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:41 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
And that is another form of intolerance.
Everything should be tolerated intolerance included.
Does that include tolerating the right to punch top-posters so hard
they choke to death on their teeth?
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
<brevity snip>
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 09:40:55 PM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173918694.145666.27910@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:41 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
And that is another form of intolerance.
Everything should be tolerated intolerance included.
Does that include tolerating the right to punch top-posters so hard
they choke to death on their teeth?
Hey, he's all for tolerance! Go for it!
If he complains, he's a hypocrite.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 09:41:51 PM |
|
|
On 14 Mar 2007 17:31:34 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:41 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
And that is another form of intolerance.
Everything should be tolerated intolerance included.
Does that include tolerating the right to punch top-posters so hard
they choke to death on their teeth?
You misunderstand. You have to tolerate Christians and you have to
tolerate their intolerance of anyone not Christian. They're
guaranteed the right to practice their religion, and those are just
two of the many intolerant requirements of that religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
16 Mar 2007 08:38:19 AM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 7:55 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:41 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
And that is another form of intolerance.
Everything should be tolerated intolerance included.
And yet being intolerant of intolerance is the best way to promote
tolerance.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 10:43:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:41:19 -0400, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
Don't Tolerate Intolerance
By MATT CHERRY
HumanistNetworkNews.org
March 14, 2007
<snip>
Write to the offending newspapers telling them it is unacceptable to promote
such bigotry. Or write to the Washington Times or any other paper that
published it. Share the column with your freethinking friends and
colleagues. Get them to protest it. Don't resort to intolerant language
yourself. Tell the paper why Fields' hate-mongering insults and harms you
and the significant part of their readership who share your lack of belief
in gods. If you were an atheist in a foxhole, let them know.
http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/
atheist@home#1554
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 08:04:43 PM |
|
|
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 09:43:20 PM |
|
|
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 10:12:46 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 7:43=EF=BF=BDpm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. =A0He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. =A0He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. =A0I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" =A0He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. =A0He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
14 Mar 2007 11:34:06 PM |
|
|
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt
in alt.atheism."
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
Good luck.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 12:15:59 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 9:34=EF=BF=BDpm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? =A0Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity conte=
mpt
in alt.atheism."
I don't keep track, much less have a database, but I'll start if you
like. Stay tuned.
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
If my remarks on nudity/nudism were the only (alleged) fault you could
find with my post, I'm surprised you responded as you did.
It now appears that you agree with everything _else_ I wrote.
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 03:29:15 PM |
|
|
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173978959.687848.211280@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 9:34?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity
contempt
in alt.atheism."
I don't keep track, much less have a database, but I'll start if you
like. Stay tuned.
======================
No. Obviously you've lied about there being plenty of anti-nudity contempt
in alt atheism.
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
If my remarks on nudity/nudism were the only (alleged) fault you could
find with my post, I'm surprised you responded as you did.
======================
No. Your remarks on nudity/nudism are an example of your level of honesty.
Since they are clearly a lie, I must conclude you are not honest.
It now appears that you agree with everything _else_ I wrote.
======================
No. Since you are demonsterably a liar, your other comments are
automatically suspect, and suitable for dismissal.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 12:21:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:34:06 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt
in alt.atheism."
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
Good luck.
Anti nudity contempt? here? LOL, I can't think of anything more
generally approved of.
If this dear MSFRUSTRUM is not just yet another stupid troll, I wonder
if she thinks she has some way of knowing just who is and who is not
wearing clothes whilst posting.
So far my bet is that she's a troll and is just looking to see who's
naked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MsFrustum" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 12:26:39 PM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 10:21=EF=BF=BDpm, (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:34:06 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or =
of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the la=
st
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? =A0Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity cont=
empt
in alt.atheism."
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide=
a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
Good luck.
Anti nudity contempt? =A0here? =A0LOL, I can't think of anything more
generally approved of.
If this dear MSFRUSTRUM is not just yet another stupid troll, I wonder
if she thinks she has some way of knowing just who is and who is not
wearing clothes whilst posting.
How neatly you reduce my remarks about anti-nudism in particular and
anti-nudity in general to no more than "Nude In Front Of Computer" --
an activity that 99.9999% of the time is in the privacy of one's own
home. Moreover, even within the home, much NIFOC is done out of sight
of other family members, especially out of sight of the kids. With
rare exceptions, NIFOC is about as "nudist" as showering nude -- i.e.,
not nudist at all.
Quite simply, you failed to make a point.
---
LOP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 03:22:59 PM |
|
|
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173979599.158122.307250@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:21?pm, (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:34:06 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or
of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the
last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity
contempt
in alt.atheism."
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide
a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
Good luck.
Anti nudity contempt? here? LOL, I can't think of anything more
generally approved of.
If this dear MSFRUSTRUM is not just yet another stupid troll, I wonder
if she thinks she has some way of knowing just who is and who is not
wearing clothes whilst posting.
How neatly you reduce my remarks about anti-nudism in particular and
anti-nudity in general to no more than "Nude In Front Of Computer" --
an activity that 99.9999% of the time is in the privacy of one's own
home. Moreover, even within the home, much NIFOC is done out of sight
of other family members, especially out of sight of the kids. With
rare exceptions, NIFOC is about as "nudist" as showering nude -- i.e.,
not nudist at all.
Quite simply, you failed to make a point.
========================================
Here's a point.
Since I see you included no anti-nudity quotes from alt atheism, I must
conclude that you don't have any. That being the case, your claim of plenty
of "anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism." is at best either grossly
mistaken, or at worst a deliberate lie.
Is that a reasoned enough refutation of your remarks for you?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 09:56:01 PM |
|
|
On 15 Mar 2007 10:26:39 -0700, "MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:21�pm, (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:34:06 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173928366.413650.142930@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 7:43?pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
"MsFrustum" <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
What planet do you live on?
It's not earth, that's for sure.
--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet-
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
You want real discussion? Really? Ok.
Please, provide some quotes from alt atheism that establish the truth of
this statement: "I see some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt
in alt.atheism."
I'll be anxious to see those anti-nudity posts because they will provide a
basis for me to evaluate the truth of your assertions.
Good luck.
Anti nudity contempt? here? LOL, I can't think of anything more
generally approved of.
If this dear MSFRUSTRUM is not just yet another stupid troll, I wonder
if she thinks she has some way of knowing just who is and who is not
wearing clothes whilst posting.
How neatly you reduce my remarks about anti-nudism in particular and
anti-nudity in general to no more than "Nude In Front Of Computer" --
an activity that 99.9999% of the time is in the privacy of one's own
home. Moreover, even within the home, much NIFOC is done out of sight
of other family members, especially out of sight of the kids. With
rare exceptions, NIFOC is about as "nudist" as showering nude -- i.e.,
not nudist at all.
Quite simply, you failed to make a point.
No, quite simply, you failed to get the point.
I don't know if you are trolling or insane, but either way, get a
life. You won't like it here. Naked or otherwise.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 06:17:20 PM |
|
|
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in news:1173928366.413650.142930
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Oh Denis, Denis, can't you even come up with just one reasoned
refutation of my remarks? Are you really reduced to responding with
third grade playground tripe?
Keep your shirt on.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds ***** sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 06:15:59 PM |
|
|
"MsFrustum" <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in news:1173920683.176223.291430
@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
Let's see the rack.
Defend your turf.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds ***** sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 10:10:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
MsFrustum <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote:
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
*blink* . . . *blink*
Only in certain cases, ITYM.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Yeah, and we hate them fuckin' nudists, too, don't forget.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
But you are?
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Implying that it's also acceptable to hate nudists? Well, du-uh. This
absolutely goes without saying. I mean, _they run around naked all the
time._ There's no earthly reason we should even let them live any more.
How much more foolish can you be?
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
The only thing you've shown us here is that at least one nudist appears
to suffer from the same "propensity." No wonder we hate your naked
wrinkly asses so much.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Here, let me get you a tissue. . . .
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 11:45:48 PM |
|
|
"chibiabos" <chib@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:150320072010589485%chib@nospam.com...
In article <1173920683.176223.291430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
MsFrustum <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote:
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
*blink* . . . *blink*
Only in certain cases, ITYM.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Yeah, and we hate them fuckin' nudists, too, don't forget.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
But you are?
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Implying that it's also acceptable to hate nudists? Well, du-uh. This
absolutely goes without saying. I mean, _they run around naked all the
time._ There's no earthly reason we should even let them live any more.
How much more foolish can you be?
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
The only thing you've shown us here is that at least one nudist appears
to suffer from the same "propensity." No wonder we hate your naked
wrinkly asses so much.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Here, let me get you a tissue. . . .
Amazing, isn't it? An atheist and a nudist and
she gets more upset about the way nudists are
treated than she does about the way atheists are
treated. And, talk about a negative viewpoint. Her
complaints about Matt Cherry's 'hypocritical crybaby
crap' sounds like nothing but noise and whining to
me. I'd sympathize with nudists in general because
of the way most of society views them, but I
definitely would not sympathize with the whinging
MsFrustum.
Last year, a guy told a friend of several years that
he was an atheist. The 'friend' rewarded his trust by
shooting him in the head. (I think they were arguing
at the time, but really. The idiot that shot him insisted
that the dead atheist was a Satanist when the police
arrived.) When's the last time that happened to a nudist?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
17 Mar 2007 09:35:45 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism
chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote in message
MsFrustum <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote:
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
*blink* . . . *blink*
Only in certain cases, ITYM.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Yeah, and we hate them fuckin' nudists, too, don't forget.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Here, let me get you a tissue. . . .
Amazing, isn't it? An atheist and a nudist and
she gets more upset about the way nudists are
treated than she does about the way atheists are
treated.
Where's stoney, our nudist atheist, when we need him?
Probably off at some nude beach, or jogging nude or flashing
people at the mall, or something... :)
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
15 Mar 2007 11:59:15 PM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 11:45 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"chibiabos" <c...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:150320072010589485%chib@nospam.com...
In article <1173920683.176223.291...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
MsFrustum <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote:
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
*blink* . . . *blink*
Only in certain cases, ITYM.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Yeah, and we hate them fuckin' nudists, too, don't forget.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
But you are?
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Implying that it's also acceptable to hate nudists? Well, du-uh. This
absolutely goes without saying. I mean, _they run around naked all the
time._ There's no earthly reason we should even let them live any more.
How much more foolish can you be?
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
The only thing you've shown us here is that at least one nudist appears
to suffer from the same "propensity." No wonder we hate your naked
wrinkly asses so much.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Here, let me get you a tissue. . . .
Amazing, isn't it? An atheist and a nudist and
she gets more upset about the way nudists are
treated than she does about the way atheists are
treated. And, talk about a negative viewpoint. Her
complaints about Matt Cherry's 'hypocritical crybaby
crap' sounds like nothing but noise and whining to
me. I'd sympathize with nudists in general because
of the way most of society views them, but I
definitely would not sympathize with the whinging
MsFrustum.
Last year, a guy told a friend of several years that
he was an atheist. The 'friend' rewarded his trust by
shooting him in the head. (I think they were arguing
at the time, but really. The idiot that shot him insisted
that the dead atheist was a Satanist when the police
arrived.) When's the last time that happened to a nudist?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
Well, there's the time a hunter saw a naked women in the woods and
asked, "Are you game?" She said "Yes", so he shot her.
---
a.a. #2273
.
|
|
|
| User: "tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
16 Mar 2007 12:01:13 AM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 11:59 pm, "tirebiter" <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Mar 15, 11:45 pm, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"chibiabos" <c...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:150320072010589485%chib@nospam.com...
In article <1173920683.176223.291...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
MsFrustum <msfrus...@aol.com> wrote:
The article by Matt Cherry of Humanist Network News (March 14, 2007)
is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Cherry does _not_ come out against vilification of minorities -- or of
majorities or of individuals. He makes no plea for accuracy or
evenhandedness across the board. He's not interested in improving the
quality of all discourse.
Instead, the guy has his ever-so-delicate knickers in a knot solely
because his own ox has been gored, his own ox and that of his own
little band.
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
*blink* . . . *blink*
Only in certain cases, ITYM.
And, of course, alt.atheism contains plenty of lies and barrels of
gratuitous contempt aimed at theists in general and Christians in
particular.
Yeah, and we hate them fuckin' nudists, too, don't forget.
Atheists, it seems, aren't a bit different from the folk this Cherry
guy is all upset about.
But you are?
Cherry himself begins with a lie by saying, "Why are atheists the last
group in America that it is socially acceptable to hate?" He's simply
wrong, and either too dense or too unfeeling to know he's wrong. He
comes across as so wrapped up in his own paranoia and self-pity that
he's unable to see the world around him.
Implying that it's also acceptable to hate nudists? Well, du-uh. This
absolutely goes without saying. I mean, _they run around naked all the
time._ There's no earthly reason we should even let them live any more.
How much more foolish can you be?
Until and unless Matt Cherry can bring himself to look at the forest,
instead of only his own favorite tree, and speak out against the
societal propensity to lie about others, I have no sympathy for the
guy.
The only thing you've shown us here is that at least one nudist appears
to suffer from the same "propensity." No wonder we hate your naked
wrinkly asses so much.
His article is nothing more than highly hypocritical crybaby crap.
Here, let me get you a tissue. . . .
Amazing, isn't it? An atheist and a nudist and
she gets more upset about the way nudists are
treated than she does about the way atheists are
treated. And, talk about a negative viewpoint. Her
complaints about Matt Cherry's 'hypocritical crybaby
crap' sounds like nothing but noise and whining to
me. I'd sympathize with nudists in general because
of the way most of society views them, but I
definitely would not sympathize with the whinging
MsFrustum.
Last year, a guy told a friend of several years that
he was an atheist. The 'friend' rewarded his trust by
shooting him in the head. (I think they were arguing
at the time, but really. The idiot that shot him insisted
that the dead atheist was a Satanist when the police
arrived.) When's the last time that happened to a nudist?
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
Well, there's the time a hunter saw a naked women in the woods and
asked, "Are you game?" She said "Yes", so he shot her.
---
a.a. #2273
Michelle, please don't take back my a.a. number for that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
17 Mar 2007 09:28:05 AM |
|
|
MsFrustum <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in alt.atheism
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
Funny, I've been around this group for 10 years, and can't remember
any anti-nudist contempt from atheists around here.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't Tolerate Intolerance |
17 Mar 2007 10:21:06 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:9lunv2tg6g186nph866l0o05jgjetv0v5n@4ax.com...
MsFrustum <msfrustum@aol.com> wrote in alt.atheism
As a nudist who is also an atheist (or as an atheist who is also a
nudist, take your pick), I know that far more lies are told about
nudists than about any of the various types of non-theists. I see
some of those lies and plenty of anti-nudity contempt in alt.atheism.
Funny, I've been around this group for 10 years, and can't remember
any anti-nudist contempt from atheists around here.
No, there was a Jenny someone who was a nudist an | | | |
