| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"V" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2006 09:31:06 AM |
| Object: |
We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
From:Ghod - view profile
Date:Wed, Dec 6 2006 1:41 pm
"Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote in message
news:nLCdh.40$Sq2.25@newsfe07.lga...
"Brian E. Clark" <r...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
yep, but gawd jr. will next say that he was the author. lol.
D'oh! If this is the original source, then the idiot _is_ the
author.
Hey, here's a quote from another of the *****'s posts, "The sturdy
of ethics and virtue has also helped me along in life." I'm not
entirely sure how a sturdy [sic] of ethics has helped him....but
anyhow, reading the post shows me that I may have been mistaken in
calling him xian. He says, "I do not practice Buddhism to earn
merit
for the next life - I practice Buddhism for my own peace generation
in
THIS LIFE."
Oddly enough, I had a conversation with a buddhist bartender last
night....
Oops, spoke too soon. Shortly afterward, he says, "If God is not
peace, then God must be the opposite of peace...turmoil and unrest. I
prefer to believe God is peace and God is the authority on the subject
of peace."
We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V:
No - do not believe what I say - but at least be open to testing what I
say. Then report back to the group and give the results.
Yes, I am the author of the calories post.
Yes I am agnostic and not 'Christian
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
I stand by the God of Peace. Atheist do serve the God of Peace just as
all mankind must do if they wish to flourish. See
Every atheist serves two Gods. And in reality, these Gods require
worship from all humans whether they be atheists or theists. The 'God
of Inner Peace' is the first God. Without serving this God of Inner
Peace man will turn to self destruction and suicide. The other God is
that of the 'God of Nature' which makes itself evident with it natural
laws or commandments. No matter how defiant the atheist or theist
is...we will ALL bow to the God of Nature sooner or later.
Speaking of nature, it is also good to keep in touch with the lesser
cousin of the God of Nature which is seeking peace with our own nature.
In short the equation for finding peace with our nature is: Authentic
Nature + Right Actions = Peace Yes, learning to accept the nature of
all things is an important part of the equation for living a life at
peace, but there is a missing link that needs to be added to this
equation. The missing link is marrying authenticity with rightness.
There are many 'natures' in our life to be mindful of - we have our own
nature, the nature other persons we have contact with, as well as the
'nature' of nature itself. But, just becoming a 'blissninny' and
blindly accepting the various natures will not give us peace. To apply
this tool rightly, we need to adopt a life of proportionality, balance
and wisdom. How do we learn to live a more balanced life? By using
rational thought patterns and by putting reason before passion. Then we
can view our actions as balanced or not, for without rational thought
we have nothing to weigh in our quest for balance.
Knowing what is true and developing wisdom to be at peace are two very
important qualities for the confused spiritual practitioner to develop.
With respect to myself, I try to balance wisdom with that of peace
perception. For whether something is a truth or not, it still has to
pass the peace test. There are many things that are true and good in
life, but they will still end up destroying my peace if I let them.
Usually the dividing line for such 'good today ~ bad tomorrow'
questions are rooted in the area of balance and proportionality.
If you don't know what I am talking about, then I will give you this
example. we need water to drink and air to breath in order to live.
But, even though water and air are life sustaining, too much water and
too much air will become life destroying...proportionality and balance
divides life from death. I always ask if a person, place, thing or
activity promotes my peace or destroys my peace? When I practice
compassion for others as my Buddhist practice recommends, I ask this
same question of peace promotion or peace destruction of others. I
look deeply to see what is destroying the other persons peace the best
I am able to. There are 3 main components to rational thinking.
1 - Rationality requires reflection.
Many of us are too busy to reflect. Other times our minds our consumed
with troubles and out of control passions. Over thinking also plays a
part in keeping our minds working in the wrong direction. An old
Buddhist saying tells us that a constantly busy mind cannot heal
itself. Reflection time must be 'open thinking' time where we look at
both ends of the spectrum and everything in between for answers and
choices and not just the comfortable ones we are accustomed to. We
cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we
created them. Psychologist William James once said, "A great many
people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their
prejudices."
2- Rationality is the ability to anticipate consequences.
Reflection pays big part in this as well as past experiences and the
process of extrapolation from past experiences and others mistakes.
Weighing and balancing are two key words that come into play. Sometimes
'gambling' is more a component to those that 'shoot from the hip' and
worry about consequences later. Many of us get stuck in a place of
justifying our actions with blindness to the consequences. Our actions
are ego based and not truth or rational based. "First one decides the
goal, then one gathers the principles or delusions to justify reaching
this goal." Principles or delusions? This depends on whether the mind
is being used for rational thought or if out of control passions are in
command.
3 - Rationality requires adherence to certain standards.
There are many standards to consider and each individual has to judge
these for themselves. Another name for a standard is a rule. Many
people are defiant against 'rules' and they are entitled to not follow
the rules as they please. But such freedom has a price to pay, so they
should not balk at paying the price for their freedom with the
necessary consequences that come from not following the rules.
Standards are different for each area of excellence that we seek to
attain. The standards for excellence in rock climbing are different
from those of a scuba diver. Professional standards of an engineer will
be different from societal standards of being a good parent. But one
thing is certain. If we are defiant and balk against these standards we
will probably be headed for failure or even death in certain
activities. (Failure? This cannot be said in 100% of the cases, for
without such experimentation and digression inventors would not produce
much. But in generally acceptable terms, standards usually have to be
followed. If you balk at following standards then go back to component
1 and do some reflection as to why?)
Now just turning to Buddhism is not all it takes if your goal is to
live a flourishing human life. Yes, Buddhism contain many truths, but
it also contains many non truths as well.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=9.0
But isn't that how man made religion is? It all comes from imperfect
man so imperfect man can never make anything as complex as religious
thought perfect?
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=318.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=133.0
Yet, we as humans must still serve the God of Peace or we will
self-destruct , so we must give it our 'best efforts' irrespective of
how imperfect those efforts are. A simple tool to smooth out the
everyday fluctuations in our life is: forget perfection and look for
direction. We can either be going up, down or sideways with our goals.
Use this direction tool to get a quick gauge of your inner spiritual
condition.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=91.0
Accepting a persons nature must always be balanced with rational
thought as I said above. We can accept another's natures as an abuser
and be at peace that they have this nature, but we do not have to stay
in close proximity of them ourselves. The missing link so to speak with
the blissninny that accepts everything blindly is they are neglecting
to align ones authentic nature with that of finding inner peace. The
serenity prayer tells us we have 2 possibilities to find peace...by
Change or by Acceptance. We should always seek out change for the most
part and practice acceptance as the last resort. That is the general
rule. Change first - Accept later. For without feeling anger or
discontent we wound not seek out change - as in changing our
environment that might be an unhealthy one for us. So, we should never
regret feeling anger, but just as anger and excretion are two naturally
occurring parts of being a human, we should let them serve us instead
of we being enslaved to them.
In SCA they have a tool called abstention. They abstain the best way
they can from people places or things they have found to be detrimental
to their recovery program efforts from past experience with them. My
recovery success is based a lot on abstaining from people, places and
things that do not mesh well with me and if I cannot avoid them, then I
work to make the unavoidable fit better by changing things on my end.
Yes, we cannot change others, but we do usually have control of
ourselves and how we participate in dealing with others. Even though
we cannot completely change or wipe our many problem areas in our life
we can usually change *some* aspects of most problems to make them more
bearable. So, I am always looking for small changes to make in the
right direction and this recovery orientation towards the direction of
change helps by giving hope of possible larger future change as well.
When Socrates was a young man he had to make a decision to make with
which road to take in his own study of philosophical knowledge. He
looked at his predecessors and their study of science and nature and
also weighed his talents in this area. His conclusion? "I am not of
the nature to study nature." Socrates was at peace with his own nature.
We only have so much of 'us' to spend, so spend it wisely. Fighting
ones authentic nature spends our time and energies unwisely. The
serenity prayer gives us the answer, "God / Higher Power, grant me the
serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change
the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference."
We can see this battle over accepting others nature happening all the
time with the sexes. Many women say they can't understand men, just as
many men say they can't understand women. In the bible it says that
God's way is not man's way. Well, to further distill this we can say
that God's way is not man's way and man's way is not woman's way. Every
creature has it's way and when you can come to peace with this you will
be on your own way to accepting life on life's terms and not your own.
To start on your peace journey look for insight into the other
creatures suffering and problems. Each sex has their strong and weak
points just as the yin and yang dictates. To change this would be to
change the underlying duties and essence of that creature. It is of
their nature for men and women to be men wand women. "Were I a
nightingale, I would act the part of a nightingale; were I a swan, the
part of a swan." ~ Epictetus
I had a mentor that I held in high esteem for his various talents in
sports. As he aged he started to get back problems. One sport he
excelled in was kayaking. Kayaking eventually had a particularly bad
affect on back problems. At age 51, I cannot sit in a hard-shell
whitewater boat for longer than 10 or 15 minutes before my back starts
bothering me. This fellow had the same issues. What did I do with my
back problem and kayaking? I accepted my nature and went to inflatable
kayaks and can kayak for a few hours with only moderate back problems.
What did my mentor do? He continued with hard-shell kayaking and made
himself so uncomfortable he saw no other choice other that to kill
himself and he blew his brains out. My mentor did not have the ability
to accept ones changing nature. No flexibility gives us no hope and we
get locked into tunnel vision with death as being the only option from
escaping our pain.
Accept others nature helps when we apply live and let live. It becomes
much easier to do once we accept our own nature, then we can apply a
little of this acceptance to anthers right to exist. The Buddhist tool
of compassion helps as well. It reminds me to look for insight into he
other persons suffering. When we spend out time looking for insight
into their suffering it does not leave much time for building up hatred
against them. The two do not mix well. we cannot develop compassion and
hatred for someone at the same time.
On some discussion lists the topics have come up of doing good for
others. It seems some list members are not at peace with doing good.
Whether they feel like they must be obligated to do or give a certain
amount of themselves or their money. Or they feel something is wrong
with them for not wanting to do more good, as society 'puts' the
goodness conciseness on them. We are NOT required to do a certain
amount of 'good' for others. I would say we are required to not harm
others if we desire to be at peace. In my own case, I donate a very
small amount of money to charity and I give very little time to
volunteer work. I give what is comfortable and natural for me to give.
But, I do donate good in an area that is authentic and not forced for
me with writing my posts and planting seeds of peace in others. As I
plant the seeds in others, I water my own seeds of peace, so I get
double benefits. Find your own strengths in this area, do what is
natural and authentic for you. If you are uncomfortable with your life
write on it to clarify what you would like to get on it. The world
needs all sorts...for balance.
You can get some clarity on the authenticity issue if you ask yourself
why you wish to do something? What is your driving force? Do you act
from fear or act from desire of begins at peace? Don't let others
dictate your balance point to you. Just as no one could dictate to you
when you have had enough to eat or drink, or how much money you have to
spend. so it goes that no one can tell you how much of you that must be
spent in the world to try to do good. The decision must come from
within you. My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there
goes my peace - it is my choice. Put your inner peace foremost and you
will have your answer. Fear or guilt based reasons for acting are not
authentic and genuine. The persons actions are based on negative
consequences otherwise they would not do them. I see this a lot on the
Buddhist and Christian oriented discussion boards the practitioners are
worried they will develop bad karma or go to hell for a mis-step. They
are not worried about peace...they are worried about pain. "People that
practice religion are worried about going to hell - people that
practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't want to go
back." As I will tell you below in the section on Heidegger, "When you
align real and authentic actions with those that promote inner peace
you are moving closer to enlightenment."
Another area of nature that some disregard is that of natural law. I
find that sometime spiritual practitioners neglect the natural laws
that govern our bodies and suffer in this area from lack of living a
balanced life. Some of us forget we are spiritual beings residing in
physical bodies living in physical world and governed and as such are
governed by the following 3 branches of laws:
1 - Natural or physical laws
2 - Man made laws
3 - Divine or spiritual laws
Proportionality and balance used to be taught in ancient Greek
educational curriculum. Unfortunately, these studies have gone the way
of the dinosaurs. There is no one magic bullet in life that will fix
all our problems. Living a good life is composed of many qualities and
when we reach for one thing only with thoughts of disregarding the rest
of life's laws we will be out of balance. To be at peace is a natural
ability that is instilled within us all - you only have to become
balanced to be at peace. When Socrates was in his cell awaiting
execution, his friend Crito visited him offering plans of escape and
the resources of many of Socrates friends to help him set up a new life
away from Athens. Socrates responded to Crito, "My friend Crito, your
zeal is invaluable, if a right one; but if wrong, the greater the zeal
the greater the evil..."
Socrates accepted his fate and practiced virtue by being at peace and
living within the 3 branches of laws that governed him. This is what
the author James Allen had in mind with his famous quote from his book
"As a Man Thinketh" ~ "Circumstances do not make the man - they revel
him to himself." Manmade law imprisoned Socrates and man made laws
sentenced him to death. Socrates chose not to break the law, even when
it was a simple task to escape with the help of his friends and live
instead of die. For Socrates, circumstances did not make him into
anything other than what he 'genuinely' was.
If your an atheist or agnostic, you may not think much of divine or
spiritual laws, but you still have to answer to natural and man made
laws. Don't get confused by the term spiritual. I am not always
referring to organized religion when I use such terms. Atheist or not,
there are many mysteries in the world. The spiritual studies deals with
such mysteries, for the root of spiritualism is that of the unseen and
the force behind it all. Some people say they can defy man made laws as
well as divine laws, but no matter how defiant the person or addict is
- no one escapes natural laws. To be successful in life we have to put
some effort in spiritual work and some effort in physical work for a
good balance as well as be mindful of not violating manmade laws.
It is by restructuring my life to accept and live within all these laws
that I have been able to find much peace...by living within my means.
My prior life was just the opposite. I lived a life that violated all 3
branches of these laws. As I wrote in my earlier post 'Putting Peace
First' ..."All our actions have consequences and many of these actions
are producing consequences that rob us of inner peace." If we expect to
escape from the consequences of ALL our actions - that is delusional
thinking. Desire plays a big part in guiding our actions. If we have a
constant supply of never ending desires that end in the disruption of
our peace what chance have we to find serenity? To find peace I had to
rework my life when it came to excessive desires as well as being
mindful of living within these 3 branches of laws.
Accepting ones nature as well as the nature of others is not the total
answer to the mystery of being at peace. Yes, we can accept our nature,
but if our nature continues to be that of peace destroying instead of
peace promoting, then some additional work needs to be done. Sometimes
we can have a say at our nature and other times we cannot. Martin
Heidegger, a famous existentialist philosopher wrote much on
authenticity. While Heidegger could be arguably be said to have
'written the book' on authenticity and genuineness, Heidegger was also
a Nazi supporter. Now, we can sometimes blame such affiliation on
design, such as being forced against our will. But in this case,
Heidegger seemed to be a Nazi by desire and not one by design. I
discussed this in an earlier post 'Addict by design ~ Addict by Desire'
For authenticity and genuineness to be of real value, they must also be
in the 'right direction' as the Buddhists set fourth in the eightfold
path. Yes, Heidegger new about authenticity, he seemed authentic and
genuine in his actions, but fell short of the other half of the
equation of marrying authenticity with 'right' actions. Heidegger
accepted his nature, but his natural and authentic nature was one that
was not that of 'peace promoting' in nature within himself, nor peace
promoting for others. Academic smarts are no guarantee of peace smarts.
As I wrote in my own post on authenticity, "When you align real and
authentic actions with those that promote inner peace you are moving
closer to enlightenment."
BTW, if you made a study of such a person as Heidegger while looking
into the subject of authenticity. Would finding our his Nazi
affiliations blind or prejudice you to what he had to say about
authenticity? Would you spend your time trying to 'prove him wrong' to
make your ego right? If you liked the philosophy of Aristotle, but
discovered Aristotle promoted slavery. Would that blind you to all of
his teaching? The nature of humans is that they are imperfect. If we
only seek out perfect humans to learn from the pickings will be
slim...really the pickings will be zero. But, even with all our
imperfections, many of us contain small perfection's to learn from if
the student is willing to look for them and be open when they surface.
The answer to these question of prejudicial blindness will tell you a
lot about your own nature. If your nature is that of passion before
reason and a tendency to being blinded to the truth due to prejudice,
then reread what I wrote in my earlier post 'Our Guiding light
Prejudice or Truth' Always remember, truth stands on it own and is
without political or religious affiliations ... just as nature rules
.... so does truth.
Accepting one authentic nature, balancing authenticity with doing good,
not harboring hatred or fear, being generous and compassionate to
others, being at peace within and with all - these are all qualities of
the enlightened mind. When Socrates was leaving his trial after being
condemned to death he had these parting words. I'll leave you with them
as they show how one man applied the equation of Authentic Nature +
Right Actions = Peace (Translated by Benjamin Jowett)
"Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this of a
truth - that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after
death. He and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own
approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that to die
and be released was better for me; and therefore the oracle gave no
sign. For which reason also, I am not angry with my accusers, or my
condemners; they have done me no harm, although neither of them meant
to do me any good; and for this I may gently blame them.
Still I have a favor to ask of them. When my sons are grown up, I would
ask you, O my friends, to punish them; and I would have you trouble
them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or
anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something
when they are really nothing - then rebuke them, as I have rebuked you,
for not caring about that for which they ought to care and for thinking
that they are something, when they are really nothing. And if you do
this, I and my sons will have received justice at your hands.
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and
you to live. Which is better God only knows."
Good Luck,
V (male)
.
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
12 Dec 2006 10:13:03 AM |
|
|
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things
you wrote long ago? This is not the place for you to
publish. It is for discussion (your present thoughts).
I stand by the God of Peace. Atheist do serve the God of Peace just as
all mankind must do if they wish to flourish. See
Every atheist serves two Gods. And in reality, these Gods require
worship from all humans whether they be atheists or theists. The 'God
of Inner Peace' is the first God. Without serving this God of Inner
Peace man will turn to self destruction and suicide. The other God is
that of the 'God of Nature' which makes itself evident with it natural
laws or commandments. No matter how defiant the atheist or theist
is...we will ALL bow to the God of Nature sooner or later.
(snip endless verbiage)
How does adding the word "God" to each of these concepts add
any information? You have retained a bad habit from your
Christian days. You would be thinking much more clearly, if
you could get in the habit of formulating ideas without
having to add the word "God" to every abstraction. It would
also make your writing more terse, which whether you believe
it or not, would be a good thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
12 Dec 2006 12:40:39 PM |
|
|
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote long
ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for discussion (your
present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
I stand by the God of Peace. Atheist do serve the God of Peace just as
all mankind must do if they wish to flourish. See
Every atheist serves two Gods. And in reality, these Gods require
worship from all humans whether they be atheists or theists. The 'God
of Inner Peace' is the first God. Without serving this God of Inner
Peace man will turn to self destruction and suicide. The other God is
that of the 'God of Nature' which makes itself evident with it natural
laws or commandments. No matter how defiant the atheist or theist
is...we will ALL bow to the God of Nature sooner or later.
(snip endless verbiage)
How does adding the word "God" to each of these concepts add any information?
You have retained a bad habit from your Christian days. You would be
thinking much more clearly, if you could get in the habit of formulating
ideas without having to add the word "God" to every abstraction. It would
also make your writing more terse, which whether you believe it or not, would
be a good thing.
One word or fewer would be nice.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
12 Dec 2006 02:15:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote long
ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for discussion (your
present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards,
witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling
from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that *we* are the
ones that need help?" -Jon Stoll
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
12 Dec 2006 08:29:58 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote long
ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for discussion (your
present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
13 Dec 2006 07:50:41 AM |
|
|
In <mn.64917d6c4047e668.64065@worldnet.att.net>, on 12/12/06
at 07:29 PM, Pangur Ban <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> said:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote long
ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for discussion (your
present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
You damned site better make some humorous remarks, especially when they
are appropriate. That is, unless you have the personality of a stick that
has been unceremoniously dumped in a mud pile. Again I note you are
apologizing when no apology is either appropriate or due, if your ethics
say don't do it, then don't do it, but very few people have ethics that
require them not to tell the truth. I would have had to say that your
comment was right incorrect, there is no indication that the other person
that you were making the comment about his ever had a thought, let alone
an original thought. So enough with the guilt trip already, you done
nothing that I can see it requires you to hang your head in shame, now
hang your head to hide the big possum on top of the full trash can with no
lien out behind the steakhouse, then by all means hang your head. Just
don't scuff your foot.
walksalone who does so hope he does not have to go through this again, but
if it is required, the sleeves will get rolled up & the job will get done
again.
No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a
message to the world as this good news of Atheism.
[Annie Besant,The Gospel of Atheism]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
14 Dec 2006 08:56:28 AM |
|
|
submitted this
idea :
In <mn.64917d6c4047e668.64065@worldnet.att.net>, on 12/12/06
at 07:29 PM, Pangur Ban <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> said:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
You damned site better make some humorous remarks, especially when they
are appropriate. That is, unless you have the personality of a stick that
has been unceremoniously dumped in a mud pile. Again I note you are
apologizing when no apology is either appropriate or due, if your ethics
say don't do it, then don't do it, but very few people have ethics that
require them not to tell the truth. I would have had to say that your
comment was right incorrect, there is no indication that the other person
that you were making the comment about his ever had a thought, let alone
an original thought. So enough with the guilt trip already, you done
nothing that I can see it requires you to hang your head in shame, now
hang your head to hide the big possum on top of the full trash can with no
lien out behind the steakhouse, then by all means hang your head. Just
don't scuff your foot.
I didn't think I had done anything wrong - but as I am still learning
about the group, I didn't want to take the chance I was wrong.
Thank you again for confirming that I wasn't being insulting to anyone
(accidentally).
To you I will listen ... all others I will henceforth take with a
tablespoon of salt.
walksalone who does so hope he does not have to go through this again, but
if it is required, the sleeves will get rolled up & the job will get done
again.
With you keeping me on track - and Robyn to help me with a checkrein on
my tendency to "pop off" - I will stand more firmly on my two feet with
this group.
May you walk in beauty and harmony ....
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ghod" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 11:41:43 AM |
|
|
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.71dc7d6cf31d7119.64065@worldnet.att.net...
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc submitted this
idea :
In <mn.64917d6c4047e668.64065@worldnet.att.net>, on 12/12/06
at 07:29 PM, Pangur Ban <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net>
said:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
[snip]
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot
assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous"
comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Are you an NFG, or what?
You damned site better make some humorous remarks, especially when
they
are appropriate. That is, unless you have the personality of a
stick that
has been unceremoniously dumped in a mud pile. Again I note you
are
apologizing when no apology is either appropriate or due, if your
ethics
say don't do it, then don't do it, but very few people have ethics
that
require them not to tell the truth. I would have had to say that
your
comment was right incorrect, there is no indication that the other
person
that you were making the comment about his ever had a thought, let
alone
an original thought. So enough with the guilt trip already, you
done
nothing that I can see it requires you to hang your head in shame,
Hear, hear!
now hang your head to hide the big possum on top of the full trash
can with no
lien out behind the steakhouse, then by all means hang your head.
Just
don't scuff your foot.
Woah! This is trippy.....
I didn't think I had done anything wrong - but as I am still
learning
about the group, I didn't want to take the chance I was wrong.
Thank you again for confirming that I wasn't being insulting to
anyone
(accidentally).
V is nobody.....he came here in a trojan horse, pretending to be an
atheist. Burn him.
To you I will listen ... all others I will henceforth take with a
tablespoon of salt.
*GACK* Thanks for reminding me of the horribly overseasoned catfish I
had for lunch.
walksalone who does so hope he does not have to go through this
again, but
if it is required, the sleeves will get rolled up & the job will
get done
again.
With you keeping me on track - and Robyn to help me with a checkrein
on
my tendency to "pop off" - I will stand more firmly on my two feet
with
this group.
As long as you're not Peter, you can popoff all you want.
May you walk in beauty and harmony ....
Is that a new park?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 08:34:39 PM |
|
|
Ghod expressed precisely :
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.71dc7d6cf31d7119.64065@worldnet.att.net...
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc submitted this
idea :
In <mn.64917d6c4047e668.64065@worldnet.att.net>, on 12/12/06
at 07:29 PM, Pangur Ban <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> said:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote: [snip]
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Are you an NFG, or what?
I googled NFG and got a band, some gas company, etc.... translation,
please?
You damned site better make some humorous remarks, especially when they
are appropriate. That is, unless you have the personality of a stick that
has been unceremoniously dumped in a mud pile. Again I note you are
apologizing when no apology is either appropriate or due, if your ethics
say don't do it, then don't do it, but very few people have ethics that
require them not to tell the truth. I would have had to say that your
comment was right incorrect, there is no indication that the other person
that you were making the comment about his ever had a thought, let alone
an original thought. So enough with the guilt trip already, you done
nothing that I can see it requires you to hang your head in shame,
Hear, hear!
now hang your head to hide the big possum on top of the full trash can with
no lien out behind the steakhouse, then by all means hang your head. Just
don't scuff your foot.
Woah! This is trippy.....
I didn't think I had done anything wrong - but as I am still learning
about the group, I didn't want to take the chance I was wrong.
Thank you again for confirming that I wasn't being insulting to anyone
(accidentally).
V is nobody.....he came here in a trojan horse, pretending to be an
atheist. Burn him.
To you I will listen ... all others I will henceforth take with a
tablespoon of salt.
*GACK* Thanks for reminding me of the horribly overseasoned catfish I
had for lunch.
LOL Catfish, american fries, green beans with a cut up bacon strip,
hot cornbread .... *sigh*
walksalone who does so hope he does not have to go through this again, but
if it is required, the sleeves will get rolled up & the job will get done
again.
With you keeping me on track - and Robyn to help me with a checkrein on
my tendency to "pop off" - I will stand more firmly on my two feet with
this group.
As long as you're not Peter, you can popoff all you want.
LOL
May you walk in beauty and harmony ....
Is that a new park?
*grin* is a Native American expression common in my area..... a lovely
wish that someone walk in the beauty of the earth and in harmony with
it and all who inhabit it.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
13 Dec 2006 07:50:41 AM |
|
|
In <mn.64917d6c4047e668.64065@worldnet.att.net>, on 12/12/06
at 07:29 PM, Pangur Ban <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> said:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote long
ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for discussion (your
present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
You damned site better make some humorous remarks, especially when they
are appropriate. That is, unless you have the personality of a stick that
has been unceremoniously dumped in a mud pile. Again I note you are
apologizing when no apology is either appropriate or due, if your ethics
say don't do it, then don't do it, but very few people have ethics that
require them not to tell the truth. I would have had to say that your
comment was right incorrect, there is no indication that the other person
that you were making the comment about his ever had a thought, let alone
an original thought. So enough with the guilt trip already, you done
nothing that I can see it requires you to hang your head in shame, now
hang your head to hide the big possum on top of the full trash can with no
lien out behind the steakhouse, then by all means hang your head. Just
don't scuff your foot.
walksalone who does so hope he does not have to go through this again, but
if it is required, the sleeves will get rolled up & the job will get done
again.
No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a
message to the world as this good news of Atheism.
[Annie Besant,The Gospel of Atheism]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
13 Dec 2006 08:44:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote long
ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for discussion (your
present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
-Woden
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
13 Dec 2006 09:07:46 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
13 Dec 2006 03:13:59 PM |
|
|
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
14 Dec 2006 03:07:44 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
PDW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 09:08:58 AM |
|
|
"Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166130464.497992.83910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume
that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Tis the season! Ho freakin' ho! ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 11:56:17 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Syd M." <pdwright42@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166130464.497992.83910@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume
that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Tis the season! Ho freakin' ho! ;)
...Er.. I think I have something to do over there.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
PDW, (Now where's those woods..?)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
14 Dec 2006 05:12:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Not exactly. There was that incident where she was holding the wand
backwards...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 09:09:34 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:3qidnZcHS4zIRxzYnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume
that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous"
comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Not exactly. There was that incident where she was holding the wand
backwards...
Bloody hell. MUST you keep bringing that up? >:P
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 09:30:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:09:34 -0500, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:3qidnZcHS4zIRxzYnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume
that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous"
comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Not exactly. There was that incident where she was holding the wand
backwards...
Bloody hell. MUST you keep bringing that up? >:P
That was a rhetorical question wasn't it?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse *****. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their
pockets for new vocabulary." -James D. Nicoll
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 11:58:05 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Not exactly. There was that incident where she was holding the wand
backwards...
Well, even Witchs make mistakes.
Not that you heard that from me, of course..
PDW, at work, looking over his shoulder, and about to get outta here..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
16 Dec 2006 08:29:02 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:58:05 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Not exactly. There was that incident where she was holding the wand
backwards...
Well, even Witchs make mistakes.
Not that you heard that from me, of course..
PDW, at work, green and hopping about
Too late...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind
of world:.... a world in which oil reserves are controlled
by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West..."
-George Bush
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
19 Dec 2006 02:01:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:12:21 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo wrote
(in article <3qidnZcHS4zIRxzYnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@giganews.com>):
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Syd M. wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
Not exactly. There was that incident where she was holding the wand
backwards...
And had turned you into a frog, again, and kicked you downstairs into the
cats litter box. I am surprised you forgot about that.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.³ -
Vintagewheels
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
14 Dec 2006 08:33:37 PM |
|
|
Syd M. wrote after much deliberation:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
PDW
Wheee! You called me Pang!!!! Thank you!! :')
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 11:59:09 AM |
|
|
Pangur Ban wrote:
Syd M. wrote after much deliberation:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you wrote
long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is for
discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
PDW
Wheee! You called me Pang!!!! Thank you!! :')
You gotit, Pang ol' man..
PDW, now about to dash...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
15 Dec 2006 08:56:03 PM |
|
|
After serious thinking Syd M. wrote :
Pangur Ban wrote:
Syd M. wrote after much deliberation:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is
for discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
PDW
Wheee! You called me Pang!!!! Thank you!! :')
You gotit, Pang ol' man..
PDW, now about to dash...
Umm, I am female... Pang, ol' gal would be more accurate. :')
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
16 Dec 2006 12:53:40 PM |
|
|
Pangur Ban wrote:
After serious thinking Syd M. wrote :
Pangur Ban wrote:
Syd M. wrote after much deliberation:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is
for discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume that
any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
PDW
Wheee! You called me Pang!!!! Thank you!! :')
You gotit, Pang ol' man..
PDW, now about to dash...
Umm, I am female... Pang, ol' gal would be more accurate. :')
Oops, sorry, Pang ol' girl..
PDW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: We shouldn't believe anything this fucker says here |
16 Dec 2006 04:24:31 PM |
|
|
Syd M. explained :
Pangur Ban wrote:
After serious thinking Syd M. wrote :
Pangur Ban wrote:
Syd M. wrote after much deliberation:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Pangur Ban" <PangurBanTheist@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.69e77d6cdcd0b594.64065@worldnet.att.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote after much deliberation:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:29:58 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo submitted this idea :
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:40:39 -0700, Pangur Ban wrote:
John Popelish expressed precisely :
V wrote:
(snip)
Some of my posts are many years old and written when I was
Christian,
so please excuse any inappropriate reference as I miss Siam when
editing them out. Just point out the passage in question to me.
Why are you padding your posts, here, with copies of things you
wrote long ago? This is not the place for you to publish. It is
for discussion (your present thoughts).
Shame on you. You made a false assumption.... you cannot assume
that any "present thoughts" are occurring. >:|
Or thoughts.
I am replying only to note that I cannot make any "humorous" comments
henceforth. I apologize for making the above comment about V.
Whatever for?
I was told I was being "sanctimonious" and was trying to impress with
clever retorts and was trying to show I was "better than the rest".
Therefore, I apologize to the ng.
Oh phooey, be yourself. You can't please everyone. Goodness knows I've
never tried ;)
--
Yeah, Pang.. She hasn't turned anyone into a newt for a week now..
PDW
Wheee! You called me Pang!!!! Thank you!! :')
You gotit, Pang ol' man..
PDW, now about to dash...
Umm, I am female... Pang, ol' gal would be more accurate. :')
Oops, sorry, Pang ol' girl..
PDW
lol No problem...
--
Pangur | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
