On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:18:24 GMT, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:

"watch out for Hitler" <Æ> wrote in message
news:ie94pv8h0i0de7ra7i79hkac4mdsuvpmou@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 05:23:09 GMT, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:

"watch out for Hitler" <Æ> wrote in message
news:aj24pvsoem545efbm5dsq2ssm4irr2mi4u@4ax.com...

Any takers for the car pictured in the photo on this site?

http://crazycars.5u.com/

Describe a personality profile that you think would be fitting of
ownership of such a vehicle.

What images and symbols are involved, and how do they relate to the
photo?

(Witty responses allowed)

what is it with off-topic (unmarked) usenet posters and crack

<plink!> cya, psycho

Thank you for your response.

I am unsure how questions that are seeking a range of thoughts and
perspectives from a number of societal sectors can be deemed
"off-topic".

it seems to me that it's off topic in all except the first group listed.

*****

The questions have been asked to gather information regarding
perceptions and evaluations of issues surrounding the imagery. I am
seeking a diverse range of perspectives, and look forward to receiving
responses that represent the considered opinions from each of these
groups.

If you cannot see or understand the significance of the questions with
regard to the groups to which they have been posted, then clearly it
providies an insight into your individual relativistic frame of
reference, and will help with understanding your particular atheistic
viewpoint with regard to the issues raised.

As far as my understanding of atheism goes, I gather that one of its'
defining characteristics would be relativism, and therefore your
response in this instance probably does not reflect "agreed atheist
thought" with regard to the issue(s).

see above

Perhaps you could take a look at the photo, re-read the questions that
I have asked, and then provide some considered responses that
contribute to the discussion by reflecting your thoughts on the
matter.

saw the photo, your questions are stupid, now *****

Are you therefore saying, that you merely looked at the photo, and no
thoughts came into your head, that you had no perception of there
being any significance resulting from any imagery or symbols or
perception, that you have no views on whether you yourself or any
other societal or cultural groups may have interpretations regarding
aspects of the material portrayed?

How did you come to the conclusion (if you actually came to a
conclusion) that the questions "are stupid"? Why is asking questions
of this nature "stupid"? What makes the questions stupid?

If the image has no significance to you personally, please state as
such. Your opinion will be duly noted, and will be considered as part
of the range of any responses received.

In appreciation...

I really would like to receive an "in-depth" response and summation of
your considered thoughts on the matter, if you feel that you are
capable of providing such an assessment.

Many thanks...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:18:24 GMT, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:

"watch out for Hitler" <Æ> wrote in message
news:ie94pv8h0i0de7ra7i79hkac4mdsuvpmou@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 05:23:09 GMT, "the cutest atheist"
<herdofnerd(remove)@hotmail.com> wrote:

"watch out for Hitler" <Æ> wrote in message
news:aj24pvsoem545efbm5dsq2ssm4irr2mi4u@4ax.com...

Any takers for the car pictured in the photo on this site?

http://crazycars.5u.com/

Describe a personality profile that you think would be fitting of
ownership of such a vehicle.

What images and symbols are involved, and how do they relate to the
photo?

(Witty responses allowed)

what is it with off-topic (unmarked) usenet posters and crack addiction?
<plink!> cya, psycho

Thank you for your response.

I am unsure how questions that are seeking a range of thoughts and
perspectives from a number of societal sectors can be deemed
"off-topic".

it seems to me that it's off topic in all except the first group listed. now
*****

The questions have been asked to gather information regarding
perceptions and evaluations of issues surrounding the imagery. I am
seeking a diverse range of perspectives, and look forward to receiving
responses that represent the considered opinions from each of these
groups.

If you cannot see or understand the significance of the questions with
regard to the groups to which they have been posted, then clearly it
providies an insight into your individual relativistic frame of
reference, and will help with understanding your particular atheistic
viewpoint with regard to the issues raised.

As far as my understanding of atheism goes, I gather that one of its'
defining characteristics would be relativism, and therefore your
response in this instance probably does not reflect "agreed atheist
thought" with regard to the issue(s).

see above

Perhaps you could take a look at the photo, re-read the questions that
I have asked, and then provide some considered responses that
contribute to the discussion by reflecting your thoughts on the
matter.

saw the photo, your questions are stupid, now *****

Are you therefore saying, that you merely looked at the photo, and no
thoughts came into your head, that you had no perception of there
being any significance resulting from any imagery or symbols or
perception, that you have no views on whether you yourself or any
other societal or cultural groups may have interpretations regarding
aspects of the material portrayed?

How did you come to the conclusion (if you actually came to a
conclusion) that the questions "are stupid"? Why is asking questions
of this nature "stupid"? What makes the questions stupid?

If the image has no significance to you personally, please state as
such. Your opinion will be duly noted, and will be considered as part
of the range of any responses received.

In appreciation...

I really would like to receive an "in-depth" response and summation of
your considered thoughts on the matter, if you feel that you are
capable of providing such an assessment.

Many thanks...

Enkidu wrote:
(There's no forging a PGP signed message!)

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:03:53 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:00:48 +1300, watch out for Hitler <Æ> posted in
alt.atheism:

I am unsure how questions that are seeking a range of thoughts and
perspectives from a number of societal sectors can be deemed
"off-topic".

You posted this to alt.atheism. Read the charter. It's off-topic in
alt.atheism.

Perhaps you could post a reference to the section of the charter that
specifically excludes questions that seek an atheist response and
perspective.

It would be my understanding that scope is provided for such
discussions, and rather than be exclusionary of those with an
atheistic viewpoint, I thought that the discussion would be enhanced
by the inclusion of contributions from those who hold to an atheistic
belief system.

As far as my understanding of atheism goes, I gather that one of its'
defining characteristics would be relativism

It's ONLY defining characteristic is lack of theism.

As an anti-theist, you would therefore deny the existence of both God
and Satan, which are normally defined as the representatives of the
embodiment of absolute good and absolute evil.

By denying the existence of absolute good or absolute evil

with regard to matters of morality, then inherently atheistic belief systems

would be defined as "relativistic"

as decisions on what is defined "good"
or "evil" (if these terms are used or defined) is built on the sands
of ever-changing current populist or individualistic thought

rather than the rock of unchanging absolutes.

and therefore your
response in this instance probably does not reflect "agreed atheist
thought" with regard to the issue(s).

Agreed atheist thought is lack of theism. There's nothing else that
all atheists have in common.

There would be a number of characteristics that descend from a
disbelief in theism that would be shared by all anti-theists.
Relativism would be one of the more readily discernable and
quantifiable.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

What an ironic signature in light of the discussion of aspects of
"relativism" and "relativity".

Nah, I want a time-traveling 1957 MGA Coupe. (At least I can get into a '57
A, and they will also go faster than 88 miles an hour. And it was also much
better looking than the DeLorean.)

Are you implying that DeLoreans can't go faster than 88 MPH and that
they're hard to get into??

Sorry...I call B.S. on this one.

From:

Nah, I want a time-traveling 1957 MGA Coupe. (At least I can get into a
'57
A, and they will also go faster than 88 miles an hour. And it was also
much
better looking than the DeLorean.)

Are you implying that DeLoreans can't go faster than 88 MPH and that they're
hard to get into??

Sorry...I call B.S. on this one.

Wouldn't you have to paint it yourself?
I want a fusion-powered time-traveling DeLorean.

Nah, I want a time-traveling 1957 MGA Coupe. (At least I can get into
a '57 A, and they will also go faster than 88 miles an hour. And it
was also much better looking than the DeLorean.)

Blasphemy! =8-0