Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in
news:Xns99BF6D219C92doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159:

Oh, you're morons. You're just not ONLY morons. You're vicious,
low- life morons who waste a lot of their time trying to hurt people
with words. You may have started to notice that this is not a
one-way street.

ooooh you're going to get tough with us now, are you? Bring it on you
pathetic wanker.

On Oct 4, 3:40 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191314546.255366.279430@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 2, 11:13 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1191214837.007705.219940@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 1, 8:21 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
innews:j84qf39h8lo06qv4jkihtpbf1ndnlt30rh@4ax.com:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:24:12 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

I never said that. I believe that people who insist that I'm
insane without a shred of real evidence other than the fact
that I believe in God are insane. They're even insane to
expect that any honest clinical psychologist would agree with
their assessment.

Sounds like a 5-year-old claiming that anyone who calls him a
child is a child, and that no children will agree with their
assessment that he's a child.

In fact, it's not "like", it *IS*.

Sorry, I apologize to the morons of this world. You are
BENEATH a moron.

I'm afraid that is how low we have to sink just to be able to
communicate to the likes of you.

Nope. It's how low you go to try to get in a low blow...

If you were just morons, you wouldn't be so vicious.

That's right: if we were all morons then we could all believe in
your imaginary god together. Unfortunately for you, some of us
have woken up to the truth. What's taking you so long? Man you
are slow!

Oh, you're morons. You're just not ONLY morons. You're vicious,
low- life morons who waste a lot of their time trying to hurt people
with words. You may have started to notice that this is not a
one-way street.

The truth hurts you but your lies grow tiresome.

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:bdf4g31rq5q9hk7u2liddt18nmv4u2rmmh@4ax.com:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:12:26 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

No, I'm just pointing out that you hypocrites continue to crosspost to
alt.bible.

Nothing in alt.bible telling us not to. The alt.atheism FAQ tells you
not to. No hypocrisy. If you don't like the real world, have someone
add something to the alt.bible FAQ.

If you want to enforce a rule like that, then get a moderator and prevent
all these crossposts from being posted. Something along the lines of the
talk.origins robomoderator should do the job.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:48:19 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:12:26 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:84r1g3p7tqotkaq5lpbibbm802mqrub0ei@4ax.com:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:24:58 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:

Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:6o5qf39lu0fqfq7utperr0ssev6b718c3o@4ax.com:

He's not insane because he is a believer. Plenty of people
believe

and

have the intelligence and courtesy to keep their god-talk where
it is appropriate, and not to invent slanderous "reasons" why
people react negatively when god-talk is inappropriate.

How is god-talk inappropriate in alt.bible?

You know better, David: alt.religion.christian, alt.education,
alt.bible and alt.atheism. That just means that Christopher is
correct - you're a liar.

No, I'm just pointing out that you hypocrites continue to crosspost
to alt.bible.

Nothing in alt.bible telling us not to. The alt.atheism FAQ tells you
not to. No hypocrisy. If you don't like the real world, have someone
add something to the alt.bible FAQ.

It's not just the newsgroups per se but general commonsense and
courtesy.

If a theist knows his audience included atheists then presumption of
his god is rude - with a few exceptions: eg an atheist going to a
service with their spouse, in which case he has but himself in the
congregation's space. But within that the atheist still has their own
space, and it is beyond the pale for the preacher to attack atheists,
or to do god talk directly to them.

A prime example being Pat Tillman's funeral: his brother stood up in
the ceremony to rip the pastor a new one for his remarks - because the
deceased was an atheist and the god-talk was an insult.

But it's not just theists as a monolithic block. It's also
inter-denominational. No theist should assume his religion's or even
his denomination's doctrines even apply to other theists. It is just
as silly for a Catholic to presume Papal infallibility to a Baptist or
an Episcopal as it is to an atheist, or for a fundamentalist to
presume Biblical inerrancy to a non-fundamentalist. Let alone
Jesus-as-God to Muslims or Jesus at all to Jews. Even lesser doctrines
like rules female celebrants: the CofE has female vicars, but the
Catholics only have male priests.

The problem with Usenet is that it is full of religious assholes on a
mission who cross-post to other groups - the science groups, other
religions and denominations, atheists etc. We've even had it in model
railway newsgroups and e-lists, with the god-botherer insisting their
particular god is always appropriate.

With a few assholes like BillM doing the same thing back to give them
a taste of their own medicine. Most of us here wish he wouldn't
because he lowers himself to their level and in any case we get enough
flamewars as it is.

I stopped going to a particular model railway club because of the mix
of conservative religion and conservative politics, which had nothing
to do with running trains. The other one I go to has rules saying
there will be no religious or political discussions - which they
shouldn't even need.

A Usenet group is like a room, in which people are holding their own
discussion, whether it is atheists getting together to discuss their
own issues or believers getting together in prayer meetings.

So along come jerks who broadcast their prayers to a group of atheists
trying to discuss imposed religion, and the result is obvious: they
get told to *****. And turn into whining hypocrites pretending the
reaction is out of the blue.

What BillM and his ilk do is just as bad.

The only place god-talk is appropriate is within all-believer groups
on or off the net.

If you never posted your drivel here, I would never respond to the
filthy lying attacks on my character because I wouldn't see them.

If you didn't need money you'd never have robbed that bank? Sorry,
"you made me do it" is the whine of Freaqus Controlatus.

This thread was started by one of his fellow religious loonies wiping
his feces in our faces.

Too many incredibly stupid ones (a) imagine atheism is something it
isn't (including Oldridge) and invent positions we don't have based on
theistic presumptions that only apply inside their particular
religion, and (b) imagine that evolution and other origins-related
sciences are anything to do with atheism, like the idiot who started
this with his list of PhDs who reject evolution.

And they get the reaction they deserve.

We're not the ones supposed to turn the other cheek.

But I have never, ever seen any of the cross-posting Christians obey
their own commandments.

Instead it is an endless stream of bigoted, personal slanders usually
including falsehoods as "reasons" why we respond the way we do, what
our POV "really" is and "why", etc.

Whose perpetrators get treated as they deserve for this - and they
don't like it.

Of which Oldridge is a perfect example.

He has neither the sense nor the courtesy to restrict his god-talk to
where it is appropriate, nor to accept that atheism is simply the
demographic absence of theism so his god-presumptions are as worthless
as eg a Zeus-presumption would be to him.

In the one place where we do not have to put up with that kind of
rudeness.

And he pretends he can't understand why he gets the reaction he does.

Newsgroups are like real-world rooms where people get together to
discuss their own business. Occasionally outsiders crash the rooms
rudely insisting we talk about what they want.

And sometimes the outsider waves a magic wand and the wall between the
rooms disappears. So you now have two totally disparate groups with
diametrically opposite interests each shouting to get themselves
heard. And it escalates from there.

That is simple group dynamics.

My Lady-Friend is a devout Catholic who has no problem with my being
atheist, and neither do her parents. Many of her friends are also
Catholic (same church, etc). The brother of one of her friends is a
priest (at a different church) so the friend's family often hold small
"at home" masses on birthdays etc, to which I have sometimes been
invited.

But I have voluntarily put myself in _their_ group space where _their_
position counts. The priest knows I am atheist and doesn't mind
because I am doing it out of respect for the family. And that even
inside that group space I still have my own personal space.

Occasionally one of the other guests has said something, and the
priest has stepped on it quickly.

The last time it was "You're not Catholic?", "No", "You are a
Christian though?", No, "Jewish?", "No", "Not [gasp, horror] an
atheist, what are you doing here?", "It doesn't matter what I am, I'm
here for my friend's child's birthday". The priest told her to shut
up, but in a nice diplomatic way. But this was just one of maybe ten
guests, all Uncle this or Aunty that.

The family are, like me, and like my Lady Friend, immigrants from a
country where Christianity is a minority religion, and they understand
these things because they had lived and socialised among
non-Christians.

If a theist knows his audience included atheists then presumption of
his god is rude

with a few exceptions: eg an atheist going to a
service with their spouse, in which case he has but himself in the
congregation's space. But within that the atheist still has their own
space, and it is beyond the pale for the preacher to attack atheists,
or to do god talk directly to them.

A prime example being Pat Tillman's funeral: his brother stood up in
the ceremony to rip the pastor a new one for his remarks - because the
deceased was an atheist and the god-talk was an insult.

But it's not just theists as a monolithic block. It's also
inter-denominational. No theist should assume his religion's or even
his denomination's doctrines even apply to other theists.

It is just as silly for a Catholic to presume Papal infallibility to a Baptist or
an Episcopal as it is to an atheist, or for a fundamentalist to
presume Biblical inerrancy to a non-fundamentalist.

The problem with Usenet is that it is full of religious assholes on a
mission who cross-post to other groups - the science groups, other
religions and denominations, atheists etc. We've even had it in model
railway newsgroups and e-lists, with the god-botherer insisting their
particular god is always appropriate.

I stopped going to a particular model railway club because of the mix
of conservative religion and conservative politics, which had nothing
to do with running trains.

The other one I go to has rules saying
there will be no religious or political discussions - which they
shouldn't even need.

A Usenet group is like a room, in which people are holding their own
discussion,

The only place god-talk is appropriate is within all-believer groups
on or off the net.