Oh please. Get over yourself. Your ego needs deflating. PLONK

Your contribution is like some earth mother with nothing to say, unless it's
to call someone a plonk and to get over themselves. Go do some housework if
that's the level of your contribution. Ego deflator you are obviously not
and you don't even have the calibre to be the shrew you try to be.
I hope you are a better at cooking than you are in debate. 'Whatever', 'Who
Cares' .... a PLONKER of the female species. God help us!

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 09:22:53 -0000, "Jim" <jim.docherty@btinternet.com>
wrote:

Al, but intelligence doesn't
seem to be a pre-requisite in your gang.

In your gang, OTOH, intelligence is a distinct disadvantage.

[snips]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:22:53 +0000, Jim wrote:

I would compare qualifications with you anytime Al, but intelligence
doesn't
seem to be a pre-requisite in your gang.

Well, let's see.

First post in the thread was some boneheaded theist cross-posting his
theistic garbage into an atheism newsgroup. You know, one of *your* boys
doing the typical "Hey, I'm a theist, therefore retarded" thing.

The follow-up is parsifal asking the obvious: why do we - atheists - give
a rat's rear what some guy in a dress in Rome has to say about anything?

This is followed up by you. Hmm. Let's quote:

"No of course not, as well you know. Being the Vicar of Christ he has
dedicated his life to his calling. Does your wife know you are on the
computer? Time you got on with your high -dusting mate or you will be in
deep *****.
Hope you are not into cross-dressing when you don't know what a dress is,
bigoted ignoramus that you are! "

So here you are - worsening the problem by continuing to cross-post
unwanted religious drivel into an atheism group - and what have you got?
Ah, yes. Vicar of Christ. Hmm. Pull up my handy-dandy bible software,
search for "vicar". Nope, not there, not once. "Death" is there, 342
times. "Kill" 118 times. "Steal" 21 times. "Abomination" 69 times. All
very interesting, but "vicar" doesn't appear once.

Okay, let's expand the scope a bit. KJV... Darby... EMTV... Montgomery...
Webster... ALT (Analytical Literal Translation)... ASV (American Standard
Version)... nope, "Vicar" doesn't show up in any of them. Nor does
"pope". Nor "papal" or "papacy". Whatever this old dude in a dress is,
it apparently has bugger all to do with anything God handed down in what
is supposedly His Own Word. So who is this dude, anyhow? Some pretender
to the throne with delusions of grandeur?

Well, either way, you say he's a vicar of Christ. Hmm. Christ. Ah,
right, a label meaning "saviour" or "messiah". You know, the very thing
which at least one large offshoot of the religion says never happened, and
the other branch, while it says it did happen, seems wholly unable to show
any reason to take the notion seriously.

This is then followed up with a question of very dubious relevance, about
whether his wife knows he is on the computer. Not sure how that is
relevant to anything at hand, but we'll ignore that for now.

This is followed by a reference to a "high-dusting mate"; not sure what
this means, but it doesn't appear relevant.

Finally, the statement is "Hope you are not into cross-dressing when you
don't know what a dress is, bigoted ignoramus that you are."

Well, hmm. "Dress". "A one-piece garment for a woman; has skirt and
bodice." A rather formal description, one which would disqualify many a
thing referred to as a "dress" in this day and age... but those very
things have the same basic design characteristics of the papal garb,
meaning that the term seems at least as applicable to it as to those other
garments.

This is followed by "bigoted ignoramus". Hmm. A stupid, ignorant person,
a vain pretender to knowledge. What knowledge did he pretend to?
Actually, none at all; he made a statement that he had neither married nor
murdered, which I'm reasonably certain he would have actual knowledge of,
and he asked three questions - none of this involves pretending to
knowledge that I can see. It does profess ignorance, presumably, on the
subjects of those three questions, but then ignorance is the lot in life
of humans; we are all ignorant of a good many things. Thus the relevant
part of the criticism must be that he is stupid - yet stupid people are
generally not the sort to be asking questions, as a rule.

Lastly, there is "bigoted". "Obstinately and blindly attached to some
creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system
or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others."

Perhaps he is blindly attached to some system or party, creed, opinion or
ritual, but if so it is not in evidence in the post, nor in subsequent
discussions. Presumably the applicable part is "illiberal toward the
opinions of others".

However, is this so? Is he in fact illiberal to the opinions of others?
Or is it that he is illiberal to one particular sort of opinion? Or
perhaps not even illiberal to the opinion, but rather to the actions of
those who hold the opinion - actions such as bringing unwanted theistic
discussions into an atheist newsgroup?

No, the case has not been made that he is bigoted, nor an ignoramus. Thus
two foul charges are laid, without foundation. His use of a particular
term might be questioned on strictly technical merits, but from a
perspective of structural design, the usage seems apt enough. So what's
left?

What's left is an apparently non-biblical office pertaining to a role
which, evidentially speaking, seems never to have been filled.

Which means in six lines, one paragraph, you've managed to get two
significant things wrong, quibble over a third which is mostly a matter of
opinion, question the mechanics of his relationship with his wife - and
subtly indicate he needs a keeper - and argue for a non-Biblical
office pertaining to a role which has, as far as anyone can tell, never
been filled.

That's seven failings in six lines. Most people - even most theists -
would be hard-pressed to manage such a score; that takes a particular
gift, one not often seen these days. I would congratulate you, but I
rather think this is not the sort of gift one generally congratulates.

It does, however, mean you seem singularly ill-equipped to compare mental
qualifications with Al, or anyone else, and that's without ever examining
the issue of the fact you seem to be afflicted with certain odd and
inexplicable beliefs which defy the very notion of mental acuity.

You might, in fact, be worthy of a degree of study. It is not often one
gets to see such a pure and unmitigated display of wrongness in such a
concise and compact form. If nothing else, we should thank you for the
novelty.

Meantime, have a nice day.

[snips]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:22:53 +0000, Jim wrote:

I would compare qualifications with you anytime Al, but intelligence
doesn't
seem to be a pre-requisite in your gang.

Well, let's see.

First post in the thread was some boneheaded theist cross-posting his
theistic garbage into an atheism newsgroup. You know, one of *your* boys
doing the typical "Hey, I'm a theist, therefore retarded" thing.

The follow-up is parsifal asking the obvious: why do we - atheists - give
a rat's rear what some guy in a dress in Rome has to say about anything?

This is followed up by you. Hmm. Let's quote:

"No of course not, as well you know. Being the Vicar of Christ he has
dedicated his life to his calling. Does your wife know you are on the
computer? Time you got on with your high -dusting mate or you will be in
deep *****.
Hope you are not into cross-dressing when you don't know what a dress is,
bigoted ignoramus that you are! "

So here you are - worsening the problem by continuing to cross-post
unwanted religious drivel into an atheism group - and what have you got?
Ah, yes. Vicar of Christ. Hmm. Pull up my handy-dandy bible software,
search for "vicar". Nope, not there, not once. "Death" is there, 342
times. "Kill" 118 times. "Steal" 21 times. "Abomination" 69 times. All
very interesting, but "vicar" doesn't appear once.

Okay, let's expand the scope a bit. KJV... Darby... EMTV... Montgomery...
Webster... ALT (Analytical Literal Translation)... ASV (American Standard
Version)... nope, "Vicar" doesn't show up in any of them. Nor does
"pope". Nor "papal" or "papacy". Whatever this old dude in a dress is,
it apparently has bugger all to do with anything God handed down in what
is supposedly His Own Word. So who is this dude, anyhow? Some pretender
to the throne with delusions of grandeur?

Well, either way, you say he's a vicar of Christ. Hmm. Christ. Ah,
right, a label meaning "saviour" or "messiah". You know, the very thing
which at least one large offshoot of the religion says never happened, and
the other branch, while it says it did happen, seems wholly unable to show
any reason to take the notion seriously.

It does, however, mean you seem singularly ill-equipped to compare mental
qualifications with Al, or anyone else, and that's without ever examining
the issue of the fact you seem to be afflicted with certain odd and
inexplicable beliefs which defy the very notion of mental acuity.

And, if one second before we die, we say "sorry", he'll forgive
whatever we've done and we'll spend eternity sucking God's *****.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:36:49 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:52:22 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:43:04 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:53:24 +0100, "Jim"
<jim.docherty@btinternet.com> wrote:

Your remark would carry more weight if you had not ignored Parcifal's
offensive post. Just goes to prove how partisan a Witchypoo Resident can be.
Whatever the hell that is! BAAWA Fudd more likely.

You bring your insulting, superstitious, shite, into an atheist NG,
and then whinge when we are insulting in reply?

Can you say hypocrite?

I don't think he has the necessary intelligence.

What are they trying to prove; That is what I'd like to know.

Unless, perhaps, they are trying to tell us that even if we do become
xtians, we don't have to be descent human beings, we can still be
vile, spiteful, self righteous arse wipes, like them.

... But it is Okay, because it is in Jesus name.

And, if one second before we die, we say "sorry", he'll forgive
whatever we've done and we'll spend eternity sucking God's *****.