| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2005 02:53:34 PM |
| Object: |
Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
I see that you have spoofed me before. So are you this very vocal aol
spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies and making me look like a
mentally retarded man?
Perhaps you are modifying your writing styles based on the occasion.
This post below sounds like an educated jwolf.
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.solutions
From: J Wolf <J...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:16:01 -0700
Local: Thurs, Dec 8 2005 3:16 am
Subject: Woe Unto You Wart.
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Woe to you Wart for the Devil sends the beast with wrath,
because he knows the time is short...
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
for it is a human number, its number is Six hundred and sixty six."
*Revelations ch. XIII v.18*
As a class, we have got ourselves into an awful mess. Of course, it's not
all of our own making. For over three decades, we have been subjected to
an
unrelenting, escalating ruling class assault: more than 30 years of
reaction and counter-revolution from our ruling class, which has pressed
down on our daily lives, shattered our trade union culture and
traditions,
circumscribed our hopes and strangled our aspirations.
With only some exceptions, notably the strategic offensive undertaken by
the
engineers and others in the 1970s against the Industrial Relations Act
and
the miners' stalwart but ultimately gladiatorial defence of their
industry
in 198485, our class has not attempted to fend off, let alone repulse,
these regressive attacks.
We have seen, in the mere span of a person's lifetime, the situation in
Britain turned dramatically upside down. From the days of the early 1970s
when the media (superficial as always) could clamour "Who rules Britain?"
to now, when capitalism is naked and callous in its operations, trade
unions are studiously ignored and Big Business is slavishly kow-towed to.
In the 1960s and early 1970s it was possible for Mao Tse-tung to talk
about
revolution being the main trend. And though with hindsight perhaps it
was a
slight embellishment, you still had a Soviet Union: not as revolutionary
a
force as it once was, showing signs of fraying round the edges and with
capitulationist talk emerging at times from the likes of Kruschev and
Kosygin, but still exerting a restraining influence on the world of
capitalism.
The extent of migration
What is the scale of the recent migration into Britain? Official figures
reveal the following:
1997 285,000
1998 332,000
1999 354,000
2000 364,000
Obviously the figures do not count any illegal immigration.
In these 4 years alone, before the accession of the new EU countries,
immigration at 1,335,000 exceeded emigration by about 400,000. Since
those
years immigration has continued to rise. Take the months between May and
December 2004: according to Home Office estimates about 130,000 nationals
from eight of the new member states alone applied to work in Britain;
about
123,000 of them successfully obtained work permits.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 223,000 more
people came into Britain than left in 2004 (more than double the annual
average from 1997 to 2000). Some 583,000 entered the country. Separate
figures predict the population may increase by up to 7.2 million over the
next ten years.
The number of migrants from Eastern Europe EU member states has risen
dramatically, due to the government's open door policy. The Home Office
admits that 14,000 are now arriving every month from Eastern Europe
(170,000 a year).
It is estimated that anywhere up to 200,000 illegal Turkish Kurds have
entered Britain recently. Of course, if Turkey joins the EU, then that
will
all become legal immigration.
Employment
Post-1945 there was not a commitment to full employment: it was there in
reality or at least capitalism's definition of full employment, with no
more than half a million people out of work at any time. Even at the
start
of the 1970s, the unemployment rate (as calculated at the time, so divide
by half to equate with current figures) was around 3%.
We were in a position to defeat the Labour Party's 1969 attempt to
control
unions, In Place of Strife and, in the early 1970s, the Tories'
Industrial
Relations Act. If today it was a truce, tomorrow it could be war.
Workers are thinking beings, and depending on how they think they may
then
decide to act or not. Workers do not act spontaneously, nor do they act
responsively, as a result of cause and effect. Actions and struggle
depend
on us knowing our circumstances.
In recent years there has been a marked lessening of working class
confidence, clarity of thought and class organisation. Material factors
were at work, the greatest of which was the rundown and destruction of
our
industrial manufacturing base.
From 1968 we saw an end to full employment and the re-creation of the
reserve army of the unemployed; anti-trade union legislation and
reduction
of trade union strength; deindustrialisation; and the removal of
manufacturing heartlands. Along with this came membership of the European
Economic Community (now the EU), privatisation and, at the end of the
1970s, Thatcherism.
The latest weapon in the armoury of capitalism is a massive increase in
the
numbers of people migrating to Britain. It is not accidental; it is not
without purpose. The EU requires free movement of capital and labour.
This
measure benefits capital, while making labour weaker, more insecure.
The migration attack
Speaking in Bradford in June, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn
King, put it starkly: "Immigration has reduced wage inflation. The inflow
of migrant labour, especially in the past year or so from Eastern Europe,
has probably led to a diminution of inflationary pressure on the labour
market."
Cheap mass labour from Eastern Europe has been used to keep wages
stagnant
or reduce them. The real purpose of an open-door immigration policy is
revealed for what it is: to undermine the wages and conditions of British
workers.
Apart from Ireland, only Britain (courtesy of Jack Straw and the Labour
Government) decided from 1 August 2004 to give unrestricted access to
workers from the new Eastern European member states, even though
transitional arrangements allowed restrictions for up to seven years.
Many of the EU's original 15 member states, including Germany, France and
Italy, still have tough limits on economic migration from the ten
countries
which joined the EU last May. Even by the EU's regulations, countries can
apply their own national migration legislation until at least 2006 and
also
impose entry quotas in certain professions. In contrast, the United
Kingdom
and Ireland have moved quickly to remove barriers in their labour
markets.
Britain already has millions unemployed, however much the government
attempts to reclassify them. This massive influx of labour, often
concentrated in our leading urban conurbations, particularly London, will
have a significant impact on our wages and conditions and on our creaking
services already struggling to cope with needs and reduced financial
budgets. In fact, the impact is already there in many areas.
Much of our infrastructure was already under great stress and struggling
to
cope schools, hospitals, transport and now it has this sudden,
unexpected demographic change thrown into the equation. It is evident in
London as you go about daily life.
1971, and the fight against the Industrial Relations Act: the three
decades
since then have seen a relentless counter-revolution. Open-door migration
from Eastern Europe is the latest weapon in capitalism's armoury, aimed
at
lowering wages and conditions.
Take schools as an example. In June 2005, the Association of London
Government published a report entitled "Breaking Point: Examining the
disruption caused by pupil mobility". It points out that government does
not provide any additional resources for schools with high pupil
movement.
High pupil turnover is heavily concentrated in specific geographical
locations (usually where housing is cheaper generally poorer areas) and
in specific schools. One of the key factors in pupil mobility is
international migration. Many of these children do not speak English or
do
not have fluency in the language.
The report notes that the failure to fund pupil turnover means that
schools,
particularly those with the additional challenges of high deprivation, do
not have the capacity to meet the true level of need associated with
mobile
pupils or existing pupils with diverse multiple disadvantages. Most rely
heavily on staff to provide support for new pupils by working additional
unpaid hours which in part reflects a dilution of teaching and learning
support to all children in that school.
Research undertaken by London Metropolitan University in 2002 concluded
there were approximately 80,000 asylum-seeking and refugee children in
British schools, with an estimated 62,666 in schools and nurseries in
London. In seven London education authorities, refugee children comprise
more than 10% of the school roll: a significant concentration. Teachers
feel overwhelmed by the numbers of children without English from so many
backgrounds.
These levels of migration if allowed to continue will put massive strain
not
just on the fabric of British society but also on its mental complexion
too. A nation must retain the right to control entry if it is to maintain
the glue that holds it together. We wish to retain an integrated society.
Most migrants to Britain are aged under 34. Research suggests that many
are
university educated, prompting real concerns about a brain drain in the
countries they have left. Those coming are attempting to escape hardship
elsewhere. Do they really think it's going to be easy here? Do they
imagine
a land flowing with milk and honey? They are in for a rude awakening.
We cannot tolerate being dragged backwards by certain other groups of
migrants. There is, for example, no place in Britain for African ritual
murders, for devilry exorcism with its maltreatment of children. We tamed
our religion a long time ago, and we shall not let religion persecute
workers again.
What it means to be British
Are nations outmoded? Capitalism says so. Once capitalism was the spur to
the building of nations, sweeping aside the localism and feudal land
structures. Now it prefers to create larger economic bases such as the
EU,
giving power to the larger corporations, weakening ...
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, ģI am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Rosenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
20 Dec 2005 03:39:05 PM |
|
|
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
I see that you have spoofed me before.
I'm really confused, John. Aren't you and Tommy close friends?
So are you this very vocal aol spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies
and making me look like a mentally retarded man?
Oh, don't worry about that last part. No one's views of you are colored
by these spoofers.
--
Mike Rosenberg
<http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida
<http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible John" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
20 Dec 2005 03:59:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1h7vlvb.1jg0g8tsepn6N%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid>,
mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
I see that you have spoofed me before.
I'm really confused, John. Aren't you and Tommy close friends?
I do not understand why he would spoof me. But then again I would have
done the same at his age. I was very busy in those days hacking past
the security system at the school, stealing software, and causing havoc
for people. I even did this to some of my friends!
So are you this very vocal aol spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies
and making me look like a mentally retarded man?
Oh, don't worry about that last part. No one's views of you are colored
by these spoofers.
I take that. But this guy is crazy. But he does sound like some loon.
Tommy may have issues as I did. But I do forgive him.
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, ģI am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rogue" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
20 Dec 2005 04:09:24 PM |
|
|
Mike Rosenberg wrote:
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
I see that you have spoofed me before.
I'm really confused, John. Aren't you and Tommy close friends?
So are you this very vocal aol spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies
and making me look like a mentally retarded man?
Oh, don't worry about that last part. No one's views of you are colored
by these spoofers.
JERRY
Yeah, it's tough for the spoofers to top what John has already posted,
isn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
20 Dec 2005 10:11:01 PM |
|
|
In article <john.doggett-B1C8A4.12533420122005
@news.supernews.com>, Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov>
declared...
I see that you have spoofed me before. So are you this very vocal aol
spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies and making me look like a
mentally retarded man?
How about you? Are you spoofing yourself? You do have an AOL
account, don't you? And you do have at least a mild diaper
fetish, don't you?
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
21 Dec 2005 03:15:19 AM |
|
|
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <john.doggett-B1C8A4.12533420122005
@news.supernews.com>, Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov>
declared...
I see that you have spoofed me before. So are you this very vocal aol
spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies and making me look like a
mentally retarded man?
How about you? Are you spoofing yourself? You do have an AOL
account, don't you? And you do have at least a mild diaper
fetish, don't you?
How about it John?
For all of the whining I've seen you make about people saying this of
you, I've never seen you deny it.
Have you worn a diaper in the last ten years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible John" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
21 Dec 2005 10:03:05 AM |
|
|
In article <H29qf.663438$xm3.173618@attbi_s21>,
Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
How about it John?
For all of the whining I've seen you make about people saying this of
you, I've never seen you deny it.
Have you worn a diaper in the last ten years?
Are we returning to Junior High?
Are you a bonehead? Are you a mommas boy? Are you a teachers pet?
What other Junior High names can I think of. Well its besides the point
and the Lord wants me to not repay evil for evil.
So good day sir!
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, ģI am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
22 Dec 2005 12:43:50 AM |
|
|
Grinder wrote:
How about it John?
For all of the whining I've seen you make about people
saying this [that you have a diaper fetish] of you, I've
never seen you deny it.
Have you worn a diaper in the last ten years?
Bible John wrote:
Are we returning to Junior High?
Are you a bonehead? Are you a mommas boy? Are you a
teachers pet? What other Junior High names can I think
of. Well its besides the point ...
Indeed it is. I've not called you any names--I have only asked you to
testify to the truth of an accusation that has been made against you.
It's really quite a simple question, and it's curious that you find
yourself unable to answer it.
Although *your* questions are likely rhetorical, I'll answer them to
show you how it could be done:
Are we returning to Junior High?
No.
Are you a bonehead?
Yes, in that my head is partly comprised of bone. It is not, however,
one solid mass of bone--it is inhabited by a few stray particles of
brain. So, if I'm gauging your question properly, I would say the
proper answer is:
No.
Are you a momma's boy?
Nope. You might want to consider if you've ever been given any
indication of what gender I am, before asking similar questions.
Are you a teacher's pet?
No. My formal schooling has been completed for some time. I still
occassionaly take instructional courses, but generally keep to myself.
When I was in Junior High, to take up the clever scenario you've been
drawing, I would probably not have qualified as a teacher's pet.
Although my academic marks were quite good, and I was, I think,
generally liked by my teachers, I had a bit of a citizenship problem.
Talking, class clownery and frequent distractions from the curriculum
kept me away from the committed ***** sucking that's required of a
teacher's pet.
... and the Lord wants me to not repay evil for evil.
Again, what evil did I do you in asking if another's accusations are
true or false?
So good day sir!
I would be careful in courting images of Homer Simpson, if I were you.
At any rate, back to the topic you've thusfar avoided:
Personally, I wouldn't have any problems with you if you do have a
diaper fetish. It may be a little odd, but it appears to be, in of
itself, rather harmless. As long as your recreational time does not harm
anyone, I don't think I have a right to speak against it.
Moreover, I'm somewhat encouraged by the possibility that you do have
this predeliction, and that you cannot bring yourself to tell an
out-and-out, unvarnished, bold-faced lie. I think that's an admirable
ethic, if that is indeed what's stifling your response.
On the other hand, if you really don't Pamper(tm) yourself from time to
time, why would you not just simply say: No, I have not worn a diaper
since I've been trained on the chair with the lid?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
21 Dec 2005 11:44:06 PM |
|
|
In article <john.doggett-0045E9.08030521122005
@news.supernews.com>, Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov>
declared...
In article <H29qf.663438$xm3.173618@attbi_s21>,
Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
How about it John?
For all of the whining I've seen you make about people saying this of
you, I've never seen you deny it.
Have you worn a diaper in the last ten years?
Are we returning to Junior High?
Are you a bonehead? Are you a mommas boy? Are you a teachers pet?
What other Junior High names can I think of. Well its besides the point
and the Lord wants me to not repay evil for evil.
So good day sir!
What I see is that, when asked if you were the one spoofing
yourself, you dodged the question. The way I see it, that's
another point in favor of believing it's you.
Right now, I suspect that you are the spoofer. Am I right? Are
you the one creating the Bible John spoofs? Are you the one
creating the Jason Gastrich spoofs?
A straight answer would be appreciated.
Thanks.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
21 Dec 2005 11:43:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:03:05 -0800, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
In article <H29qf.663438$xm3.173618@attbi_s21>,
Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
How about it John?
For all of the whining I've seen you make about people saying this of
you, I've never seen you deny it.
Have you worn a diaper in the last ten years?
Are we returning to Junior High?
Are you a bonehead? Are you a mommas boy? Are you a teachers pet?
What other Junior High names can I think of. Well its besides the point
and the Lord wants me to not repay evil for evil.
So good day sir!
John
John,
A simple yes or no would have been appropriate. You built your
reputation by your words and by your deeds. No one built it for you.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Tommy are you behind these spoofings? |
20 Dec 2005 07:27:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:53:34 -0800, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote:
I see that you have spoofed me before. So are you this very vocal aol
spoofer that is saying all kinds of lies and making me look like a
mentally retarded man?
No one can make you look like a mentally retarded man. No one needs
to. You do it yourself.
Perhaps you are modifying your writing styles based on the occasion.
This post below sounds like an educated jwolf.
Are you saying that the real John Wolf is not educated? I can believe
that.
Just Mark indicated in another post that he thought it might be some
jerk named Steve Perkoff. I don't know who has been spoofing you; but
I wish he would stop. He's giving you a better reputation than you
deserve.
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
