Religions > Atheism > Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jon" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2005 09:45:42 AM |
| Object: |
Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....) |
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:04:17 +0200, fungus <burnt@the.stake.com> wrote in
message <qc7%e.103886$US.31788@news.ono.com>:
Only in America would people die in a flood because
it never occurred to them to fucking walk.
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....) |
30 Sep 2005 10:26:28 AM |
|
|
In article <frjqj15q9t07v63hlnj4mmuk1l6efq7237@4ax.com>,
upfold@icon.co.za says...
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
addendum 2:
Sand *IS* rock, but Jesus was just too fucking STUPID to know that.
Oops, I guess the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't know
something that most five-year-olds could tell you today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon" |
|
| Title: Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....) |
30 Sep 2005 08:55:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:26:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
in message <MPG.1da70711e1730dd798968d@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <frjqj15q9t07v63hlnj4mmuk1l6efq7237@4ax.com>,
upfold@icon.co.za says...
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
addendum 2:
Sand *IS* rock,
is that your argument?
damn, but you are a fucking stupid AAAARSEHOLE!!!!
no, china, sand is not rock.
a 5yo could tell you that.
but Jesus was just too fucking STUPID to know that.
Jesus didn't exist.
it's ridiculous to vent anger against fictional characters.
completely ridiculous.
you are completely ridiculous.
you're a complete joke.
Oops, I guess the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't know
something that most five-year-olds could tell you today.
builders' sand comes from sandstone.
what kind of sand do you get from granite?
there's a whole bunch of different types of rock out there all eroding to
different kinds of sand.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....) |
01 Oct 2005 12:07:00 AM |
|
|
In article <isqrj19b9u6lorq0rjt6ut0dchv5b2jo35@4ax.com>,
says...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:26:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
in message <MPG.1da70711e1730dd798968d@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <frjqj15q9t07v63hlnj4mmuk1l6efq7237@4ax.com>,
upfold@icon.co.za says...
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
addendum 2:
Sand *IS* rock,
is that your argument?
It's a fact that sand is a conglomerate of small, weathered pieces of
rock. Jesus said to build upon rock and therefore he is contradicting
himself with respect to sand, which clearly is a rock. Not only is sand
composed of rock, but sandstone conglomerate reforms into a solid surface
under pressure.
damn, but you are a fucking stupid AAAARSEHOLE!!!!
You've misspelled your name, which is clearly "*****".
no, china, sand is not rock.
Sand (n) a loose material consisting of grains of rock. Sand is a rock.
Jesus made an elementary blunder and has been properly called out on it.
That you're too stupid to understand this is beside the point.
a 5yo could tell you that.
Perhaps a retarded five-year-old like yourself wrongly things that sand
is not rock. However, that's why you're a retard -- i.e because you're
wrong so frequently on topics as elementary as this.
but Jesus was just too fucking STUPID to know that.
Jesus didn't exist.
Certainly no miracle working "son of god" named jesus existed, but I'm
only talking about the mythical figure portrayed in the gospels. Darth
Vader didn't really exist either, but we can still talk about him within
the fictional context of Starwars. Trust me, I don't need you to tell me
that there never was a *real* Jesus.
it's ridiculous to vent anger against fictional characters.
Utterly wrong. 2 billion people on earth claim to believe in and follow
this fictional character. Therefore, pointing out flaws in the fairy
tale of jesus can be very important and effective.
completely ridiculous.
So, by your logic, pointing out the absurdities of the Genesis story to
creationists is "completely ridiculous" because I should just assume that
everyone knows its "obvious" that Adam and Eve and Noah were all
fictional characters. By the same logic, we can't confront
scientologists like Tom Cruise, who happens to believe L. Ron Hubbard's
poorly written science fiction fantasies are real. I suppose that we
shouldn't bother to deny that the Loch Ness monster or bigfoot or the
roswell aliens existed either because it should just be obvious that
everyone knows they're works of fiction, eh?
you are completely ridiculous.
you're a complete joke.
No, you're a simple-minded schlub and a stereotypically lazy one at that.
You don't have the intellect or the aptitude to combat the pernicious
effects of xianity, so you just give up and snipe at those, like myself,
who are fighting the good fight against religious mind control.
Oops, I guess the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't know
something that most five-year-olds could tell you today.
builders' sand comes from sandstone.
You've got it backwards. Sandstone is formed from layers of sand that
become cemented together by chemical and physical processes. Sand can
come from many weathered rock formations, however.
what kind of sand do you get from granite?
Unsurprisingly, it's called "granite sand" as any websearch would have
revealed. The more "normal" form of "beach sand" is from quartz and
silicates, but it is not the only form. I take it that you don't deny
that quartz is a rock, yes?
there's a whole bunch of different types of rock out there all eroding to
different kinds of sand.
No *****, sherlock, which proves my point. It does erode, but at present,
it is small grains of rock. Sand is rocks, albeit small ones. Jesus
didn't say how big the rocks had to be. How is it that you've
arbitrarily determined that a rock ceases to be a rock when it's broken
into smaller pieces? I guess next that you'll try to tell me that
sawdust isn't pieces of wood. I guess a potato or a carrot ceases to be
a vegetable when you cut it up, according to your reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon" |
|
| Title: Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....) |
01 Oct 2005 03:59:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:07:00 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
in message <MPG.1da7c75bf5cb61f6989698@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <isqrj19b9u6lorq0rjt6ut0dchv5b2jo35@4ax.com>,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:26:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
In article <frjqj15q9t07v63hlnj4mmuk1l6efq7237@4ax.com>,
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
addendum 2:
Sand *IS* rock,
is that your argument?
It's a fact that sand is a conglomerate of small, weathered pieces of
rock.
no *****.
Jesus said to build upon rock and therefore he is contradicting
himself with respect to sand, which clearly is a rock.
ha ha.
Not only is sand composed of rock, but sandstone conglomerate reforms into
a solid surface under pressure.
irrelevant. see below for why.
no, china, sand is not rock.
Sand (n) a loose material consisting of grains of rock. Sand is a rock.
nope.
Jesus made an elementary blunder and has been properly called out on it.
Jesus made no error. Persons who don't exist can't make mistakes.
That you're too stupid to understand this is beside the point.
this is irony.
a 5yo could tell you that.
Perhaps a retarded five-year-old like yourself wrongly things that sand
is not rock. However, that's why you're a retard -- i.e because you're
wrong so frequently on topics as elementary as this.
stick on grade play dough.
but Jesus was just too fucking STUPID to know that.
Jesus didn't exist.
Certainly no miracle working "son of god" named jesus existed,
Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, come to save us all, did not exist except in
the fictional writings of the people who wrote Christian scripture (and
other works not included in the Bible).
but I'm
only talking about the mythical figure portrayed in the gospels.
no *****.
Darth
Vader didn't really exist either, but we can still talk about him within
the fictional context of Starwars.
btw there's an interesting contradiction in the two Star Wars trilogies. in
episode III (the most recent one), Luke and Leila's mother dies in
childbirth. In episode 6, Leila tells Luke that she has early memories of
her mother.
Trust me, I don't need you to tell me that there never was a *real* Jesus.
good good. then we're on the same page. no need for silly sand vs rock
arguments.
it's ridiculous to vent anger against fictional characters.
Utterly wrong. 2 billion people on earth claim to believe in and follow
this fictional character. Therefore, pointing out flaws in the fairy
tale of jesus can be very important and effective.
no, they don't care what you or anyone like you thinks about diddly squat.
completely ridiculous.
So, by your logic, pointing out the absurdities of the Genesis story to
creationists is "completely ridiculous"
it is.
you cannot convince anyone who has decided to believe something that they
are wrong. rational debate does not enter into it.
because I should just assume that
everyone knows its "obvious" that Adam and Eve and Noah were all
fictional characters. By the same logic, we can't confront
scientologists like Tom Cruise, who happens to believe L. Ron Hubbard's
poorly written science fiction fantasies are real.
Some people evidently enjoy living their lives according to stories of
fiction which they believe to be real.
I don't. I want to see things as they really are, to the extent that I am
capable of understanding reality.
I suppose that we
shouldn't bother to deny that the Loch Ness monster or bigfoot or the
roswell aliens existed either because it should just be obvious that
everyone knows they're works of fiction, eh?
correct. you hit the nail on the head.
you are completely ridiculous.
you're a complete joke.
No, you're a simple-minded schlub and a stereotypically lazy one at that.
You don't have the intellect or the aptitude to combat the pernicious
effects of xianity, so you just give up and snipe at those, like myself,
who are fighting the good fight against religious mind control.
BUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1111
i can see why yer losing.
Christianity will die out of its own accord when its good and ready.
It has nice simple stories to explain how we came to exist that parents can
tell their kids. It's all feel good schmaltz that has mass appeal.
The Romans had a cynical understanding of the mentality of the masses
encapsulated in the Latin phrase "circenses et panem". Keep the masses
entertained and fed and they will be placated.
Religion is entertainment. The popular churches are those that are exciting
to attend. That's the bottom line need they fulfill. Spirituality, as a
pursuit, is entertainment. It masquerades as something deep and meaningful,
but it's just something to occupy one's mind. It's something to do.
Oops, I guess the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't know
something that most five-year-olds could tell you today.
builders' sand comes from sandstone.
You've got it backwards. Sandstone is formed from layers of sand that
become cemented together by chemical and physical processes. Sand can
come from many weathered rock formations, however.
i'm sure you are right. i will concede that you are this newsgroup's sand
and rock expert.
what kind of sand do you get from granite?
Unsurprisingly, it's called "granite sand" as any websearch would have
revealed. The more "normal" form of "beach sand" is from quartz and
silicates, but it is not the only form. I take it that you don't deny
that quartz is a rock, yes?
you're the rock expert.
there's a whole bunch of different types of rock out there all eroding to
different kinds of sand.
No *****, sherlock, which proves my point. It does erode, but at present,
it is small grains of rock. Sand is rocks, albeit small ones. Jesus
didn't say how big the rocks had to be.
wow. i guess "he" figured we would be able to get a good clear mental image
of what he meant. no need to further elaborate.
the translators of the Bible used the words 'sand' and 'rock' because their
meaning was clear to every English speaker.
just remember dat. you can't nitpick the English words that Jesus used
because English words were not used. you'd have to reference the original
ancient Greek words and nitpick those instead.
How is it that you've
arbitrarily determined that a rock ceases to be a rock when it's broken
into smaller pieces?
me? i just inherited the definitions of rock and sand from the people around
me.
sand is not rock. not by any stretch of the imagination. those English words
do not merely reference what they are made of. They describe size as well.
you aren't even technically right. you're just plain wrong wrong wrong.
sand, as everyone knows, describes tiny grains of eroded rock. rock is a
large chunk. English has other words - pebble, stone, gravel, boulder all
describing the same basic generic stuff in varying sizes.
I guess next that you'll try to tell me that
sawdust isn't pieces of wood.
you can't build a floor or ceiling with sawdust. wooden planks are useful
for that.
I guess a potato or a carrot ceases to be
a vegetable when you cut it up, according to your reasoning.
you can't use a carrot peel as a *****. you need the whole carrot.
munch on that concept, willya?
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store branded version....) |
01 Oct 2005 06:11:31 PM |
|
|
In article <u7otj1d3ev47d1jica1o7b1f0cf6klvhuh@4ax.com>,
says...
It's a fact that sand is a conglomerate of small, weathered pieces of
rock.
no *****.
Yes, rock is not *****, despite the existence of "sheet-rock"
Jesus said to build upon rock and therefore he is contradicting
himself with respect to sand, which clearly is a rock.
ha ha.
The Jesus character said lots of laughable things.
no, china, sand is not rock.
Sand (n) a loose material consisting of grains of rock. Sand is a rock.
nope.
Yep. Breaking rock up into smaller pieces doesn't automagically cause it
to cease being a rock.
Jesus made an elementary blunder and has been properly called out on it.
Jesus made no error. Persons who don't exist can't make mistakes.
That you're too stupid to understand this is beside the point.
this is irony.
I agree that it's ironic of you to use the word "irony" when you don't
see to know what the word means.
Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, come to save us all, did not exist except in
the fictional writings of the people who wrote Christian scripture
Of course. No one can die for your sins, presuming that we even try to
take the concept of sin seriously.
Darth
Vader didn't really exist either, but we can still talk about him within
the fictional context of Starwars.
btw there's an interesting contradiction in the two Star Wars trilogies. in
episode III (the most recent one), Luke and Leila's mother dies in
childbirth. In episode 6, Leila tells Luke that she has early memories of
her mother.
I think Lucas was trying to claim that Leah remembered Padme from
child birth. This is pretty much impossible for a variety of biological
reasons which are not likely to remedied even in a galaxy far, far away.
Trust me, I don't need you to tell me that there never was a *real* Jesus.
good good. then we're on the same page. no need for silly sand vs rock
arguments.
Jesus is the one engaging in the stupid rock vs sand *****. I'm just
calling attention to his ***** ups.
no, they don't care what you or anyone like you thinks about diddly squat.
No. They do. I've talked to hundreds of creationists and most do care,
at least enough to argue. They just always lose the arguments if fairly
short order.
completely ridiculous.
So, by your logic, pointing out the absurdities of the Genesis story to
creationists is "completely ridiculous"
it is.
No, it does change minds. I've backed many creationist into corners and
got them to concede all kinds of things. I might not convert them from
creationist to atheist in a single conversation, but it does raise doubts
in the minds of many. It works best with people who aren't really hard-
core fundamentalists so much as just people who are going through the
motions because that's how they were raised.
you cannot convince anyone who has decided to believe something that they
are wrong. rational debate does not enter into it.
I've convinced creationists that there are reasonable reasons to accept
evolution without necessarily rejecting religion. I've convinced others
that atheism can be an intellectually respectable philosophical position.
because I should just assume that
everyone knows its "obvious" that Adam and Eve and Noah were all
fictional characters. By the same logic, we can't confront
scientologists like Tom Cruise, who happens to believe L. Ron Hubbard's
poorly written science fiction fantasies are real.
Some people evidently enjoy living their lives according to stories of
fiction which they believe to be real.
Probably most people, at least within theist circles, believe what they
wish were true, regardless of how implausible it might be in reality.
I don't. I want to see things as they really are, to the extent that I am
capable of understanding reality.
I suppose that we
shouldn't bother to deny that the Loch Ness monster or bigfoot or the
roswell aliens existed either because it should just be obvious that
everyone knows they're works of fiction, eh?
correct. you hit the nail on the head.
Actually, skeptics are right to debunk these myths. As societies
psychiatrists, we can't keep allowing the inmates to run the asylum. We
need to debunk their myths even in pop culture as an object lesson for
them to apply to their supersitious fanatasies as well.
you are completely ridiculous.
you're a complete joke.
No, you're a simple-minded schlub and a stereotypically lazy one at that.
You don't have the intellect or the aptitude to combat the pernicious
effects of xianity, so you just give up and snipe at those, like myself,
who are fighting the good fight against religious mind control.
BUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1111
Apparently I must have been pretty close to the mark to get you all riled
up like that.
i can see why yer losing.
WTF? I ain't losing nothing, junior.
Christianity will die out of its own accord when its good and ready.
Unacceptable. That will take to long and the damage they do to society
is too grave to let it go gentle into that good night.
It has nice simple stories to explain how we came to exist that parents can
tell their kids.
I disagree. The stories are moronic stone-age nonsense that have little
relevance to modern life. Indoctrinating children into the sadistic
death cult of xianity is one of the most despicable forms of child abuse.
It's all feel good schmaltz that has mass appeal.
No, I don't think that the stories are particularly appealing. It's just
force of habit that keeps people repeating the crap and keeping it going.
The Romans had a cynical understanding of the mentality of the masses
encapsulated in the Latin phrase "circenses et panem". Keep the masses
entertained and fed and they will be placated.
Jesus definitely was something of a circus act, though he kinda sucked as
a magician, from the sound of things. I suppose that his mother could be
the bearded woman and his freak show followers could be fellow carnies.
Religion is entertainment.
So is smoking crack cocaine. If it didn't destroy society then I'd
almost be comfortable with letting them continue to do it.
The popular churches are those that are exciting
to attend.
There are other exciting things besides church for people to spend their
time on.
That's the bottom line need they fulfill. Spirituality, as a
pursuit, is entertainment. It masquerades as something deep and meaningful,
but it's just something to occupy one's mind. It's something to do.
They can read fiction for fun, so long as they know that it's just
fiction.
the translators of the Bible used the words 'sand' and 'rock' because their
meaning was clear to every English speaker.
Yes, many people try to hide behind translations. It's still pretty
clear that Jebus didn't know what he was talking about.
just remember dat. you can't nitpick the English words that Jesus used
because English words were not used. you'd have to reference the original
ancient Greek words and nitpick those instead.
How is it that you've
arbitrarily determined that a rock ceases to be a rock when it's broken
into smaller pieces?
me? i just inherited the definitions of rock and sand from the people around
me.
sand is not rock. not by any stretch of the imagination. those English words
do not merely reference what they are made of. They describe size as well.
It doesn't describe the size unambiguously. Rock can be of any size.
you aren't even technically right. you're just plain wrong wrong wrong.
No, technically I'm completely right. In context we assume that we know
what Jesus is trying to say and often give his his simple-minded comments
the benefit of the doubt. But we are not obligated to interpret his
statement this way. We can and should be critical. More often than not,
the so-called teachings of Jesus collapse under critical examination.
I guess next that you'll try to tell me that
sawdust isn't pieces of wood.
you can't build a floor or ceiling with sawdust. wooden planks are useful
for that.
They use sawdust floors in barns and other similar structures.
I guess a potato or a carrot ceases to be
a vegetable when you cut it up, according to your reasoning.
you can't use a carrot peel as a *****. you need the whole carrot.
I'm sure that jesus and his buddies will be disappointed to hear that.
munch on that concept, willya?
Naw, think again.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: You bite into a York peppermint pattie (or a generic/store brandedversion....) |
30 Sep 2005 05:40:21 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <frjqj15q9t07v63hlnj4mmuk1l6efq7237@4ax.com>,
upfold@icon.co.za says...
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
addendum 2:
Sand *IS* rock, but Jesus was just too fucking STUPID to know that.
Oops, I guess the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't know
something that most five-year-olds could tell you today.
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
--
Denny
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Have you noticed how theists can never, never, never be right about
anything at all on this NG? Talk about Fox being 'fair and balanced.'
Sheesh!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
30 Sep 2005 11:32:49 PM |
|
|
In article <433DBED5.A58C1CA9@nospam.net>, says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <frjqj15q9t07v63hlnj4mmuk1l6efq7237@4ax.com>,
upfold@icon.co.za says...
When you build a house, build it upon rock, not sand, so that when the rain
and floods come, your house will endure and you will not be swept away like
the evildoers.
addendums:
Choose a rock on *higher ground*.
Make sure it's not a volcano.
addendum 2:
Sand *IS* rock, but Jesus was just too fucking STUPID to know that.
Oops, I guess the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't know
something that most five-year-olds could tell you today.
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
First off, fool, most people build up on piers in the Gulf. I know this
because my parents have a small vacation house down in the ridiculously
named city of Corpus Christi. Pretty much everyone, as per building code
and to cope with flooding, piledrives or jets the piers down into the
sand, yet again proving Jesus wrong. You can build upon sand if you have
piers and its actually more resistant to flooding than the alternatives.
However, the point that obviously escaped you is that, according to the
advice of jesus, you should build on rock and yet sand is a form of rock.
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
03 Oct 2005 05:42:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone. Is that correct?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
03 Oct 2005 07:16:28 PM |
|
|
In article <btc3k191r05jk3cr428dgmtte58em0pmv5@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
Is that correct?
Of course not. You have yet to be right yet and you certainly snapped
your losing streak yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 07:14:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1dab77c2d63a477598969f@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <btc3k191r05jk3cr428dgmtte58em0pmv5@4ax.com>,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead wrong.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 06:32:52 PM |
|
|
In article <g5u3k1t3u31pf03jcsu0lj7kpasfipvkhc@4ax.com>,
jon@upfold.co.za says...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1dab77c2d63a477598969f@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <btc3k191r05jk3cr428dgmtte58em0pmv5@4ax.com>,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead wrong.
I've done plenty of construction and I know I'm right. I've already
explained that many people in coastal areas shoot piers into the sand.
It's much more able to resist serious storms and flooding than a rock or
concrete slab. But the point is simply that sand is a form of rock and
no amount of denial will get you out of that.
--
"If you think your belief is based upon reason, you will support
it by argument rather than by persecution... But if your belief is
based upon faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and
will therefore resort to force."--Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
05 Oct 2005 01:59:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:32:52 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1dacbf138d3b68e3989680@news.readfreenews.net>:
jon@upfold.co.za says...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead wrong.
I've done plenty of construction and I know I'm right.
i build skyscrapers all the time. it's my job.
I've already
explained that many people in coastal areas shoot piers into the sand.
correct. sand requires that. rock does not.
It's much more able to resist serious storms and flooding than a rock or
concrete slab.
so you admit a difference between building on sand vs rock?
arsehole.
But the point is simply that sand is a form of rock and
no amount of denial will get you out of that.
no need to deny it. that's already been said.
it doesn't make sand into rock.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "ur_droll" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
05 Oct 2005 03:12:06 AM |
|
|
Jon wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:32:52 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1dacbf138d3b68e3989680@news.readfreenews.net>:
jon@upfold.co.za says...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead wrong.
I've done plenty of construction and I know I'm right.
i build skyscrapers all the time. it's my job.
I've already
explained that many people in coastal areas shoot piers into the sand.
correct. sand requires that. rock does not.
It's much more able to resist serious storms and flooding than a rock or
concrete slab.
so you admit a difference between building on sand vs rock?
arsehole.
But the point is simply that sand is a form of rock and
no amount of denial will get you out of that.
no need to deny it. that's already been said.
it doesn't make sand into rock.
You are debating ***** with a moron.
Sand is not necessarily formed from rock particles, it can be
purely silica particles (glass is formed from silica and is a liquid)
.
|
|
|
| User: "GP GP@NoFagBoysAllowed" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
06 Oct 2005 09:30:07 AM |
|
|
"ur_droll" <G.P.sucking.away@the.snotty.end.of.my.*****.stick.co> wrote in
message news:wVL0f.16149$iM2.1327868@news.xtra.co.nz...
Jon wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:32:52 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote
in
message <MPG.1dacbf138d3b68e3989680@news.readfreenews.net>:
jon@upfold.co.za says...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote in
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf
of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between
sand and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between
sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone.
But that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand
eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand
still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead
wrong.
I've done plenty of construction and I know I'm right.
i build skyscrapers all the time. it's my job.
I've already explained that many people in coastal areas shoot piers into
the sand.
correct. sand requires that. rock does not.
It's much more able to resist serious storms and flooding than a rock or
concrete slab.
so you admit a difference between building on sand vs rock?
arsehole.
But the point is simply that sand is a form of rock and no amount of
denial will get you out of that.
no need to deny it. that's already been said.
it doesn't make sand into rock.
You are debating ***** with a moron.
Sand is not necessarily formed from rock particles, it can be purely
silica particles (glass is formed from silica and is a liquid)
and you're still low life kiwi.
Mean Things To Say To People
Any similarity between you and a human is purely coincidental!
Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn't have given you worse advice.
Are your parents siblings?
As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?
Better at sex than anyone; now all he needs is a partner.
Calling you stupid would be an insult to stupid people.
Did your parents ever ask you to run away from home?
Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at
birth?
Do you want people to accept you as you are or do you want them to like you?
Don't you have a terribly empty feeling - in your skull?
Do you still love nature, despite what it did to you?
Don't you need a license to be that ugly?
Every girl has the right to be ugly, but you abused the privilege!
Go ahead, tell them everything you know. It'll only take 10 seconds.
Have you considered suing your brains for non-support?
He has a mind like a steel trap - always closed!
He is living proof that man can live without a brain!
He is the kind of a man that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.
He's not stupid; he's possessed by a retarded ghost.
Here's 20 cents. Call all your friends and bring back some change!
Hi! I'm a human being! What are you?
How did you get here? Did someone leave your cage open?
I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my
head that far up my *****.
I bet your brain feels as good as new, seeing that you've never used it.
I bet your mother has a loud bark!
I could make a monkey out of you, but why should I take all the credit?
I don't consider you a vulture. I consider you something a vulture would
eat.
I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!
I don't think you are a fool. But then what's MY opinion against thousands
of others?
I hear the only place you're ever invited is outside.
I hear you were born on a farm. Any more in the litter?
I heard you got a brain transplant and the brain rejected you!
I heard you went to have your head examined but the doctors found nothing
there.
I know you are nobody's fool but maybe someone will adopt you.
I thought of you all day today. I was at the zoo.
I would ask you how old you are but I know you can't count that high.
I'd like to help you out. Which way did you come in?
I'd like to leave you with one thought...but I'm not sure you have anywhere
to put it!
I'd love to go out with you, but my favorite commercial is on TV.
I'll never forget the first time we met - although I'll keep trying.
I'm busy now. Can I ignore you some other time?
I've seen people like you before, but I had to pay admission!
If I ever need a brain transplant, I'd choose yours because I'd want a brain
that had never been used.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person alive.
If we were to kill everybody who hates you, it wouldn't be murder; it would
be genocide!
If what you don't know can't hurt you, she's invulnerable.
If you stand close enough to him, you can hear the ocean.
If your brain was chocolate it wouldn't fill an M&M.
Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent.
Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control!
Pardon me, but you've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn.
So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey.
Some day you will find yourself - and wish you hadn't.
There is no vaccine against stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 07:05:01 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <g5u3k1t3u31pf03jcsu0lj7kpasfipvkhc@4ax.com>,
jon@upfold.co.za says...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1dab77c2d63a477598969f@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <btc3k191r05jk3cr428dgmtte58em0pmv5@4ax.com>,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead wrong.
I've done plenty of construction and I know I'm right. I've already
explained that many people in coastal areas shoot piers into the sand.
It's much more able to resist serious storms and flooding than a rock or
concrete slab. But the point is simply that sand is a form of rock and
no amount of denial will get you out of that.
*****. They're both two different sized chunks of minerals, mainly
silica in the case of sand, but the fact that in general sand is a
/derivative/ of rock is not the same as to say it is a "form of rock",
which it is not, anymore than to say "Jupiter is a form of Sun" simply
because both are mainly hydrogen, Jupiter probably having been derived
from the material of the Sun in the formation of the solar system. By
definition rocks are big chunks of minerals, sand is a lot of small
chunks of minerals. Both sand and rocks are a subset of minerals, sand
is by definition not a subset of rock, except perhaps from the viewpoint
of ants. Now if you are the size of an ant, I can see your point, that
what we humans call rocks are merely much larger chunks of essentially
the same thing. Likewise, we could say that hydrogen atoms and Rosanne
Barr's butt-cheek are the same thing. And further, most printed words
are no different, because they are all made of mainly carbon, hence
they all have the same meaning, the words "spaghetti" and "guacamole"
being indistinguishable when eaten.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 02:24:37 PM |
|
|
Jon wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1dab77c2d63a477598969f@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <btc3k191r05jk3cr428dgmtte58em0pmv5@4ax.com>,
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention. Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
ask someone in construction. be prepared to admit that you are dead wrong.
By the same token sand and glass are the same thing, ergo, glass and stone
are the same thing. Let's send quibbler out driving on the Autobahn wearing
glasses with stone "lenses". He'll be calling out "Oh Jesus! Oh Jesus!"
before you know it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 05:40:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:16:28 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone.
I have pointed out the difference multiple times in this very thread,
despite your manifest inability to read or pay attention.
Quib, please tell me you understand that you lack the knowledge to demand that
all your stupid statements are read. One is normally enough to establish your
condition.
Sand can
chemically and physically form into a larger clastic like sandstone. But
that does not mean that the individual grains are not rock. Sand eroded
from rock and is still pieces of rock. Therefore, building on sand still
technically qualifies as building on rock.
You're a funny little guy.
Is that correct?
Of course not. You have yet to be right yet and you certainly snapped
your losing streak yet.
Say what?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 07:00:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:42:54 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:32:49 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
So when will you begin your new house down on the sands of the Gulf of
Mexico?
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction between sand
and rock.
Ok, the way I see it is that you don't know the difference between sand and
sandstone. Is that correct?
What is the difference?
Let's see if you know :-)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
01 Oct 2005 07:44:45 AM |
|
|
quibbler, proving the aptness of his handle, wrote:
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction
between sand and rock.
And you fail to make an intelligent distinction between common sense and a
manufactured debate point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
01 Oct 2005 10:59:23 AM |
|
|
Greg Evans wrote:
quibbler, proving the aptness of his handle, wrote:
Therefore, jesus fails to make an intelligent distinction
between sand and rock.
And you fail to make an intelligent distinction between common sense and a
manufactured debate point.
He ought to return that one as defective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
01 Oct 2005 11:09:37 AM |
|
|
In article <vny%e.9620$K91.6610@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com says...
He ought to return that one as defective.
Jesus and the bible certainly are defective as a source of knowledge,
wisdom or common sense and I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in the
rubbish heap where they belong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Evans" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
01 Oct 2005 01:46:08 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
... I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in
the rubbish heap where they belong.
Alongside the baby and the bathwater....
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
01 Oct 2005 04:16:59 PM |
|
|
In article <3q83s7Fdol81U1@individual.net>,
gregIGNOREevans@charter.BLATHER.net says...
Alongside the baby and the bathwater....
In the case of baby jebus, it probably would be appropriate to throw out
both.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?B?TcOQ?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
02 Oct 2005 08:44:27 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <vny%e.9620$K91.6610@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com says...
He ought to return that one as defective.
Jesus and the bible certainly are defective as a source of knowledge,
wisdom or common sense and I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in the
rubbish heap where they belong.
as you'll be pitched into the Lake of Fire, where you belong..
and Satan, your king, along with all the demons of hell, will laugh at
you for eternity as you scream in absolute horror, tearing your
ever-regenerating flesh from your body while you beg for even a drop of
water to quench the unbearable thirst.
Enjoy! <clink>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
03 Oct 2005 05:19:41 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:30:03 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <MPG.1da9aad93bf3b61198969d@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <1658776.86ZCEcaAhH@max.com>, mM@sSrEmOvEr.m says...
In article <vny%e.9620$K91.6610@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
He ought to return that one as defective.
Jesus and the bible certainly are defective as a source of knowledge,
wisdom or common sense and I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in the
rubbish heap where they belong.
as you'll be pitched into the Lake of Fire
Don't bore me with your sadistic and fallacious appeals to fear and force
as a means to immorally compel the sacrifice of my personal freedom. When
the singularity arrives, I'll be one of those who makes sure that the
xian mind virus is eradicated forever.
yer in Don Quixote mode.
yer nothing but a member of the Last Atheist Caped Crusaders, defying
religion and all moral goodness wherever you go!
Ladies and Gentlefolk, we pray thee, stay indoors, for outside roam the
likes of Q. X. Quibbler, Caped Atheist Crusader who will rob you of all your
common decency and religious virtue! Authorities are this moment hunting him
with big nets and the Power of Christ!
, where you belong..
You honestly think that your fire myths scare ME?
oh yes.
If your demigod satan
can survive there then why should anyone else fear it. We would gladly
suffer the flame to guard our own freedom of thought. Oh the blasphemous
chorus we would utter upon that abomination Yahweh.
nurse, this syringe doesn't have enough medication!! What were you
thinking!?? Give me a double atheist dose!
and Satan, your king,
He's your god, not mine. He's all part of the insane KKKrist-evil
pantheon.
The Saints preserve us from Quibbler!
along with all the demons of hell, will laugh at you
Why would they laugh at me for making the same rational decision that
they did? They would only be laughing at themselves.
for eternity as you scream in absolute horror
Satan can survive there and continue pursuing his goals, so why couldn't
I? That's, of course, indulging in your ridiculous hell fantasy, but
honestly, you need to stop letting your abject cowardice control your
entire life and your feeble brain.
, tearing your
ever-regenerating flesh from your body
Who gives a *****? Not me! It would quickly become boring. Still, I
would laugh in your God's face since he was unable to break my will with
his Saddam Hussein style torture. BTW, if you think the genocidal mass
murderer Hussein shoudl be deposed then you certainly should agree that
an evil scumbag like Yahweh should spontaneously combust from his own
viciousness.
while you beg for even a drop of
water to quench the unbearable thirst.
Oh, yes, I'm so worried about the chemical pain impulses that might go
through my brain. Please, get real. You've got nothing. Zip. Nada.
Save your hilariously silly scare tactics for the infants that you choose
to cruelly torment, you fiend.
your friends can't help you now, Atheist Caped Crusader!
Enjoy! <clink>
Yawn. Be glad there is no hell, because it is people like you, who
frolic in the imagined misery of others, who would most belong there.
everyone belongs there. it says so in the BuyBull.
Yes, Jesus loves.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
03 Oct 2005 11:02:30 AM |
|
|
Jon wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:30:03 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote=
in
message <MPG.1da9aad93bf3b61198969d@news.readfreenews.net>:
In article <1658776.86ZCEcaAhH@max.com>, m=C3=D0M=C1=D7=B9@=C5sSrEmOvEr.=
=E7=F8m says...
In article <vny%e.9620$K91.6610@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
He ought to return that one as defective.
Jesus and the bible certainly are defective as a source of knowledge,
wisdom or common sense and I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in =
the
rubbish heap where they belong.
as you'll be pitched into the Lake of Fire
Don't bore me with your sadistic and fallacious appeals to fear and force
as a means to immorally compel the sacrifice of my personal freedom. When
the singularity arrives, I'll be one of those who makes sure that the
xian mind virus is eradicated forever.
yer in Don Quixote mode.
Maybe, but I think he's got the right attitude. I say they should put
afrorementioned mind virus in secure redundant storage for access only
by serious and qualified historians and researchers. Young children,
for instance, should not be told about it until after they have matured
sufficiently, perhaps by way of acquiring a meaningful university
degree.
yer nothing but a member of the Last Atheist Caped Crusaders, defying
religion and all moral goodness wherever you go!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Ladies and Gentlefolk, we pray thee, stay indoors, for outside roam the
likes of Q. X. Quibbler, Caped Atheist Crusader who will rob you of all y=
our
common decency and religious virtue! Authorities are this moment hunting =
him
with big nets and the Power of Christ!
If they corner him in a dark alley, he should know that the best
defense is to lie down and play dead. Trust me, I know. If you try to
fend them off, it only enrages them. And when the queen bee gets news
like that, she tends to become agitated as well; which all tends to
influence the worker bees into a positive feedback cycle. And they
stay that way until they sting something.
In the downtown Toronto core, it happens like clockwork every seven
years. I can't say what regional variation there may be, so YMMV.
, where you belong..
You honestly think that your fire myths scare ME?
oh yes.
It can be worrying, yes, particularly from a socio-economic
perspective.
=20
[snippage]
Regards,
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
04 Oct 2005 07:14:02 AM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2005 09:02:30 -0700, "Steve" <steve49152@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
<1128355350.524649.158700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Jon wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:30:03 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
In article <1658776.86ZCEcaAhH@max.com>, mM@sSrEmOvEr.m says...
He ought to return that one as defective.
Jesus and the bible certainly are defective as a source of knowledge,
wisdom or common sense and I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in the
rubbish heap where they belong.
as you'll be pitched into the Lake of Fire
Don't bore me with your sadistic and fallacious appeals to fear and force
as a means to immorally compel the sacrifice of my personal freedom. When
the singularity arrives, I'll be one of those who makes sure that the
xian mind virus is eradicated forever.
yer in Don Quixote mode.
Maybe, but I think he's got the right attitude.
no, he's a loser. he's already stopped replying to me because he's beat.
I say they should put
afrorementioned mind virus in secure redundant storage for access only
by serious and qualified historians and researchers. Young children,
for instance, should not be told about it until after they have matured
sufficiently, perhaps by way of acquiring a meaningful university
degree.
religions don't die out that way.
the Christian religion targets young people. if religious organisations can
be blocked (like tobacco manufacturers) from marketing themselves in their
young target market, that will hasten the demise of Christianity.
yer nothing but a member of the Last Atheist Caped Crusaders, defying
religion and all moral goodness wherever you go!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
railing against Christianity is ridiculous. it just gives the religion more
publicity.
it's better to be completely apathetic. do nothing.
let other people run around like fools.
the influence of Christianity is being eroded and mitigated. people are
finding solace in other forms of spirituality which are less troublesome.
all the mainstream religions are in decline. they might all have only 1000
years left as major world religions.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Jon Upfold, universal arsehole, ***** extraordinaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?B?TcOQ?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
02 Oct 2005 07:48:40 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1658776.86ZCEcaAhH@max.com>, mÃÐMÁ×¹@ÅsSrEmOvEr.çøm says...
quibbler wrote:
In article <vny%e.9620$K91.6610@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com says...
He ought to return that one as defective.
Jesus and the bible certainly are defective as a source of knowledge,
wisdom or common sense and I've pitched both Jesus and the Bible in the
rubbish heap where they belong.
as you'll be pitched into the Lake of Fire
Don't bore me with your sadistic and fallacious appeals to fear and force
as a means to immorally compel the sacrifice of my personal freedom. When
the singularity arrives, I'll be one of those who makes sure that the
xian mind virus is eradicated forever.
Kurzweil's appeal to the insane replacement of carbon humans with silicon
machine intelligence represents the entire degradation of modern thought
into the spiral of absolute idiocy. He spouts about a quantum leap in
computing power, but nowhere in his 'vision' is there any increase in
wisdom. He seems to think that as humans merge with computers, poverty will
be eliminated, the arts will improve, and in general things will become
paradisiacal. Why does he think that? Why would an increase in computing
power make the world better? Just look at how many 'intelligent' people are
in the grip of maniacal, evil pursuits and you'll realize that Intelligence
is not Enlightenment. Einstein already pointed out years ago that only the
quintessentially moronic idiots of the world will place their hopes in
technology. The only technology worth getting excited about is renewable
energy, which holds out the slight hope that we might avoid utterly
destroying the only planet we have to live on by burning up every last ounce
of fossil fuel.
Kurzweil's dream of "uploading" humans into computers is nothing more than
a result of watching the Matrix one too many times. He sees genetic
engineering as a stepping stone to silicon immortality, but clear-minded
individuals see it as the doorway into a fantasy world of manipulation, not
for the good of all but for the benefit of the powerful few who would try to
establish themselves as a permanent genetic elite. Lucky for us rational
humans, Jesus will end that line of thought in the wink of an eye.
, where you belong..
You honestly think that your fire myths scare ME? If your demigod satan
can survive there then why should anyone else fear it. We would gladly
suffer the flame to guard our own freedom of thought. Oh the blasphemous
chorus we would utter upon that abomination Yahweh.
Who's "we", fuckstain? You talking about the other morons that believe
we're on the verge of a human-machine civilization where our experiences
shift from actual reality to virtual reality and where our intelligence
becomes nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful.. where human
aging and pollution will be reversed; world hunger will be solved; our
bodies and environment transformed by nanotechnology to overcome the
limitations of biology.. supposedly up to and including death; and
virtually any physical product will be created from information alone?
Yeah ..I kinda had you pegged as an idiot from the get go.
and Satan, your king,
He's your god, not mine. He's all part of the insane KKKrist-evil
pantheon.
Oh.. look at the cute little words that walnut you call a 'brain' comes up
with to argue your point.
along with all the demons of hell, will laugh at
you
Why would they laugh at me for making the same rational decision that
they did? They would only be laughing at themselves.
Demons were cast out of heaven for rebelling against God, not for believing
He didn't exist. Morons look around the world and into the vastness of
outerspace and declare, "Yup.. pure chance made all this ***** I'm lookin'
at. There ain't no fuckin' god ..we come from them microbes that randomly
combined a few billion years ago."
for eternity as you scream in absolute horror
Satan can survive there and continue pursuing his goals, so why couldn't
I? That's, of course, indulging in your ridiculous hell fantasy, but
honestly, you need to stop letting your abject cowardice control your
entire life and your feeble brain.
Not even New Mexico will prepare you for the fiery of hell, quibbler.
, tearing your
ever-regenerating flesh from your body
Who gives a *****? Not me! It would quickly become boring. Still, I
would laugh in your God's face since he was unable to break my will with
his Saddam Hussein style torture. BTW, if you think the genocidal mass
murderer Hussein shoudl be deposed then you certainly should agree that
an evil scumbag like Yahweh should spontaneously combust from his own
viciousness.
Jesus loves you, *****.
while you beg for even a drop of
water to quench the unbearable thirst.
Oh, yes, I'm so worried about the chemical pain impulses that might go
through my brain. Please, get real. You've got nothing. Zip. Nada.
Save your hilariously silly scare tactics for the infants that you choose
to cruelly torment, you fiend.
You think you can fend off those 'pain impulses' for an eternity? You must
be a Democrat.
Enjoy! <clink>
Yawn. Be glad there is no hell, because it is people like you, who
frolic in the imagined misery of others, who would most belong there.
If I truly enjoyed watching others suffer for time without end, I wouldn't
exactly warn them about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sand is a form of rock, Jebus, you stupid ***** |
03 Oct 2005 11:16:51 PM |
|
|
In article <7950767.y0fJMRCqqB@max.com>, m=C3=D0M=C1=D7=B9@=C5sSrEmOvEr.=E7=
=F8m says...
Kurzweil's appeal
Whoa there, retard, Kurzweil wasn't the first or the only person to talk=20
about technological singularity. Surely you can do some better research=20
than that.
to the insane replacement of carbon humans with silicon
machine intelligence
That's hardly the only method, nor is it necessarily a replacement. In=20
the beginning it will just be direct interfacing and augmentation of the=20
human brain with quickly accessible computing power. To an extent you're=
=20
doing it now. The very machine that allows you to drool into your=20
keyboard as you tap out anti-science, anti-technology screeds is the=20
computer that you seem to despise so much. You refuse to think or be=20
realistic about what the real applications of computing will be. Humans=20
are not looking to eliminate themselves. They just want to have brains=20
wired up so that their thoughts can be instantly implemented and turned=20
into actions. Human curiosity is drawn to these faster computing devices=
=20
because they are the only thing that viably promise the prospect of=20
helping us make sense out of all the information out there in the=20
universe to explore.
represents the entire degradation of modern thought
Again, your tirade doesn't even approach seriousness. Kurzweil is not a=20
philosopher, nor does he speak for all of modern thought. He has a=20
particular view of the trends in technology implementation. It's not=20
necessarily what is going to happen or what society wants to happen. =20
Thus far, the overwhelming majority of predictions about what the future=20
will actually be like have been substantially off the mark in terms of=20
specific details. =20
into the spiral of absolute idiocy.
You've achieve pure idiocy in your own writing in the space of about one=20
sentence, so you appear to have the advantage on old Ray.
He spouts about a quantum leap in
computing power, but nowhere in his 'vision' is there any increase in
wisdom.
Yes, in fact there is, but you're too stupid to comprehend that. You=20
obviously fail to understand what AI or IA for that matter is all about. =
=20
You need remedial instruction on that, since you obviously haven't been=20
properly educated on the subject.
He seems to think that as humans merge with computers, poverty will
be eliminated,
It will create more opportunities. Perhaps relative to the privations=20
experienced today, poverty in that form can be eradicated, in favor of=20
much greater techological abundance.
the arts will improve, and in general things will become
paradisiacal.
It will also result in the demise of religion because people will cease=20
being stupid and gullible enough to believe the lies, fallacies and=20
baseless fairy tales of theism.
Why does he think that?
Maybe you should do some research and find out, but that doesn't appear=20
to be your style. I'm sure you'll just pull some strawman out of your=20
***** and pretend that it's what Ray said.
Why would an increase in computing
power make the world better?
That's typical reductionist fallacy. It's not just an increase in=20
computing power. The arguments have been elaborately made and your=20
sleeping through class or lack of attendance altogether does not entitle=20
you to demand remedial tutoring from others. Suffice it to say that it's=
=20
clear that qualitatively different sorts of things are possible when=20
computing speed and parallelism grows beyond certain limiting thresholds. =
=20
Formerly intractable problems become easily surmountable and the solution=
=20
of those problems can yield real world results. What do you think would=20
be the financial value of accurate predictions of the weather, using the=20
speed of things like quantum computing to account for and eliminate=20
present "chaotic" sources of error? You don't think that artificially=20
intelligent programs that can do the work of dozens of normal humans=20
might have some value? AIs will not necessarily be made smarter than=20
humans, though just about any pocket calculator is smarter than you. But=
=20
if AIs were substantially smarter than the average human we would have=20
new Einsteins and Newtons to generate new theories and applications.
Just look at how many 'intelligent' people are
in the grip of maniacal, evil pursuits
Even assuming that your dubious definitions of "evil pursuits" had a=20
passing resemblances to logic or reality, these "intelligent" persons=20
might find that the situation changed as they got smarter. As smart as=20
they are now, they still might not realize that their "evil" or anti-
social behaviors were ultimately counter productive. With much greater=20
cognitive ability and access to more information or collective human=20
experience, future Saddam Husseins or A.Q. Khans might see the error of=20
their ways. They might understand that there are easier ways to achieve=20
their goals without having to dominate and exploit others. =20
and you'll realize that Intelligence
is not Enlightenment.
It's certainly not guaranteed. But if one had to bet, higher intellect=20
does make it more probable. No, there is no guarantee, but the more=20
intelligent are more capable of understanding complex ethical problems=20
and formulating judgments for how to handle them in more closely optimal=20
ways.
Einstein already pointed out years ago that only the
quintessentially moronic idiots of the world will place their hopes in
technology.
Do you even understand what technology is? It's just application of=20
scientific theory. Of course there can be technologies that hinder as=20
well as help people. It's not a matter of hope. That's where your=20
dogmatism shows again. A realistic person know that there will be=20
missteps in the road to scientific and technical progress. Asimov=20
remarked that developing new technologies is like racing forward in the=20
dark. Sometimes you may trip and other times you might go right off the=20
edge of a fucking cliff. But we take possible precautions and we do the=20
best we can. To some extend our choices are limited because the wolves=20
of famine, pestilence, civil unrest, pollution, etc are nipping at our=20
heels. Doing nothing and letting these problems overtake us would result=
=20
in unprecidented death and misery, which perhaps is what sadistic theists=
=20
like you want. =20
The only technology worth getting excited about is renewable
energy,
| | | | | | | | | |
