| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2006 02:49:49 AM |
| Object: |
Let others do the begging. |
Hi Nancy, Speaking of Joseph Smith's so-called vision
whereupon he was commanded to have multiple wives or be slain,
You asked:
Why did an Angel continously threatened J. Smith with his sword ?
Did Smith's free agency matter to God ?
Nothing could ever be truly random... that's just hard, _Hard_ science.
So, like all changes, all choices are purely virtual.
What is a choice anywhy ? You'll die faster if you live faster.
You asked:
Why didn't the angels appear to anyone but Smith ( i.e. the women ) ?
Probably because the women weren't as thrilled about it.
Yet, even today, you'll find women who prefer this arrangement.
It's like being married to a group of women and their kids
( along with a husband, in the background... mostly for inspiration )
You asked: " Did the women's free agency matter to Smith OR God ? "
What ( virtual ) choices did the women have ?
In my mind, the word God connotates a position:
A god is anything that has life and death control over something.
Is a devil any different ? I think not.
You asked:
If Smith were sent to establish a law,
why didn't he do any of it in the light of day ?
So he didn't get shot and killed any sooner than he was... obviously.
You asked:
Why didn't he lawfully petition governments, argue before the judiciary,
and take care of some of the difficult footwork necessary in order to
establish the--let's use the word correctly now--law ?
Why bother... his tribe could just move to Utah, if need be... and they did.
Trying to convince others is a fool's game.
Although it's very idealistic, " Let others do the begging ",
is still good motto... something to aspire to.
You asked:
How can a father's salvation be assured
through a daughter's marriage to Smith,
( such as Kimball's and Whitney's daughters )
if we also hold the Articles of Faith to be true...?
In the end, none are " saved ".
Life is a virtual Casino/Prison... the house wins in the end.
A father might want his daughter in such a marriage,
thinking his grandkids would be better cared for,
thanks to the other women and children in the marriage.
You asked why:
Smith foresaw the trouble polygamy would cause,
but the Lord giving the commandment didn't ?
The cosmic God, all powerful, is infinitely Distant/Irrelavant.
Your landlord, city and state are more Immediate/Relavant gods.
And they're already familiar with the dark-side of polygamy.
Finally, you asked:
And would an absolute moral God ask anyone to take another man's wife ?
Everyday gods, common land _Lords_, do this ( remarry ) all the time.
People these days have such options, more than ever before.
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
25 Oct 2006 03:07:39 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25@Cotse.NET...
<snip boring nonsense>
Have you found a new newsgroup to play with? Good. You don't know any
physics so you may do better with the Mormons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: I'm touched. |
25 Oct 2006 03:27:56 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, Thanks for taking time out of your busy day
to constantly Read/Reply_To my posts... I'm touched.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm touched. |
25 Oct 2006 03:34:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25_1_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, Thanks for taking time out of your busy day
to constantly Read/Reply_To my posts... I'm touched.
No matter how narcisstic you may be, even you can see I do not read / reply
to _all_ your posts.
You are welcome though. Now, please, find a new newsgroup to annoy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Helen" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
31 Oct 2006 05:36:13 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25@Cotse.NET...
Hi Nancy, Speaking of Joseph Smith's so-called vision
whereupon he was commanded to have multiple wives or be slain,
You asked:
Why did an Angel continously threatened J. Smith with his sword ?
Did Smith's free agency matter to God ?
Nothing could ever be truly random... that's just hard, _Hard_ science.
So, like all changes, all choices are purely virtual.
What is a choice anywhy ? You'll die faster if you live faster.
You asked:
Why didn't the angels appear to anyone but Smith ( i.e. the women ) ?
Probably because the women weren't as thrilled about it.
Yet, even today, you'll find women who prefer this arrangement.
Some women, some,,,mostly those who are so desperate for a hubby that
theyare willing to share a man.
Do any modern polygamous sects allow for the women to go off ad have
careers? I don't think so, b/c in modern day Mormon polygamy ( of course I
mean the break off sects from the LDS faith) THe women are gernally seen as
second class citizens there to serve the man and have a tribe of kids..
I have for a long time disliked polygamy, b/c I believe that marriage should
one man and one woman and I also believe it to be double standard.why should
a man have multiple partners but a woman only one? It is a double
standard,,,,,But I have given some thought to it in the context of if the
plural wives were given more autonomy..If a woman is desperate enough to
wish to share a man, then let her do it...What would be ideal is is some of
the women could have careers and if they did not wish to say at home, they
could still have babies and then return to work while the other wives look
after their kids Tehy would not have to pay fr chld ar, teir kids would be
raised by women they could trust and they could focus exclusively on their
careers whilestill enjoying mother hood...Also, I think it would work if the
husband acknowledged that from time to time one of his wives may wish to
take on a lover...so she too can experience a sexual relationship with more
than just one man, that she too can be privy to what he husband is privy
too...
Having said all that, I do not believe that polygamy was inspired, I think
that Joseph smith just wanted it and thought that it could justified..
I personally do not think it is a real marriage,,I would never wish to share
my husband with anyone.he i mine and I am his,...
e agency matter to Smith OR God ? "
What ( virtual ) choices did the women have ?
In my mind, the word God connotates a position:
A god is anything that has life and death control over something.
Is a devil any different ? I think not.
You asked:
If Smith were sent to establish a law,
why didn't he do any of it in the light of day ?
So he didn't get shot and killed any sooner than he was... obviously.
You asked:
Why didn't he lawfully petition governments, argue before the judiciary,
and take care of some of the difficult footwork necessary in order to
establish the--let's use the word correctly now--law ?
Why bother... his tribe could just move to Utah, if need be... and they
did.
Trying to convince others is a fool's game.
Although it's very idealistic, " Let others do the begging ",
is still good motto... something to aspire to.
You asked:
How can a father's salvation be assured
through a daughter's marriage to Smith,
( such as Kimball's and Whitney's daughters )
if we also hold the Articles of Faith to be true...?
In the end, none are " saved ".
Life is a virtual Casino/Prison... the house wins in the end.
A father might want his daughter in such a marriage,
thinking his grandkids would be better cared for,
thanks to the other women and children in the marriage.
You asked why:
Smith foresaw the trouble polygamy would cause,
but the Lord giving the commandment didn't ?
The cosmic God, all powerful, is infinitely Distant/Irrelavant.
Your landlord, city and state are more Immediate/Relavant gods.
And they're already familiar with the dark-side of polygamy.
Finally, you asked:
And would an absolute moral God ask anyone to take another man's wife ?
Everyday gods, common land _Lords_, do this ( remarry ) all the time.
People these days have such options, more than ever before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Just Wondering" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
31 Oct 2006 06:53:25 PM |
|
|
Helen wrote:
Do any modern polygamous sects allow for the women to go off ad have
careers? I don't think so, b/c in modern day Mormon polygamy ( of course I
mean the break off sects from the LDS faith) THe women are gernally seen as
second class citizens there to serve the man and have a tribe of kids.
Thereby parading your ignorance of the subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helen" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
26 Nov 2006 07:48:37 AM |
|
|
"Just Wondering" <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HbOdnZrJIrMWctrYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Helen wrote:
Do any modern polygamous sects allow for the women to go off ad have
careers? I don't think so, b/c in modern day Mormon polygamy ( of course
I mean the break off sects from the LDS faith) THe women are gernally
seen as second class citizens there to serve the man and have a tribe
of kids.
Thereby parading your ignorance of the subject.
Ignorance or an assumption based on truth and media coverage. Tell me, are
you in favor of polygamy? IF so, how would you like to share your wife with
another man sexually? Hmmm, thought you would not.
Polygamy is a double standard, if a man can have multiple sex partners under
the guise of religious doctrine then why can not a woman' And don't tell me
that this is the way "nature " is because women have urges too you
know..Don't you think we get tempted and would not mid a bit of variety too?
Every poltyamous sect I have read of, heard of often are guilty of marrying
some young lass to some wrinkled old dude who she would certainly not have
one ounce of desire for..But I guess our desires are irrelevant huh..after
all, we are just here to gestate and you men are here to spread your seeds
like a sprinkler...
When it comes to polygamy,women had monogamy thrust upon them.
Having said that, I have very intention of keeping my marriage vowels as
does my husband. IF he were in the most unlikely event to take on another
wife, I would say To hedll with it, if you get some extra action then I do
too, to hell with what the "prophets " have told me.
WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.I always say this, but it
is true..sorry if that disturbs you that women DO fancy other men, we are
like men in the sense that we are attracted to people other than our
spouses...Nevertheless, I think that mongamy is noble and suprior... A deep
connection, of trust, love and repspect that a married have, who are
deeply in love is worth it's weight in gold.If you have ever been really in
love and besotted with your wife you may understand this. But sex and love
are often tow different things and BOTH men and women do become attracted
to other people after the hoeny moon phase is over..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gerald Fuller" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
26 Nov 2006 09:38:26 PM |
|
|
"Helen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:45699bac$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Just Wondering" <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HbOdnZrJIrMWctrYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Helen wrote:
Snip
Ignorance or an assumption based on truth and media coverage. Tell me, are
you in favor of polygamy? IF so, how would you like to share your wife
with another man sexually? Hmmm, thought you would not.
If a man has multiple sex partners, why should he object too strongly if his
wives do the same? Of course it comes down eventually to cash! Most men I
believe would be reluctant to be forced by government to support the
"produce" of his wife's multiple sex partners.
Again, it is so far as the Church is concerned, a matter of what God
commands. If He commands we should do it or suffer the consequence.
Polygamy is a double standard, if a man can have multiple sex partners
under the guise of religious doctrine then why can not a woman'
If it is all the doings of mankind and God is not involved in any way, then
your argument is valid and you can campaign for it.
Snip
When it comes to polygamy,women had monogamy thrust upon them.
Having said that, I have very intention of keeping my marriage vowels as
does my husband. IF he were in the most unlikely event to take on another
wife, I would say To hedll with it, if you get some extra action then I
do too, to hell with what the "prophets " have told me.
Actually there was a time that my first wife essentially told me to go out
and get some on the side. (Some what? Not sure, but probably not love and
commitment.) Women may have had monogamy thrust upon them, but probably not
by society. That probably was thrust upon them as a means of providing food
and housing and a certain amount of protection for them and for the children
that they were almost certain to produce. But there have been cultures in
which the system was more open, and both men and women were not as "selfish"
and the whole society assumed responsibility for the children.
WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.I always say this, but
it is true.
It is just as true that what is bad for the goose is bad for the gander, and
promisuous relationships, seem to be bad for both in our own society in the
USA. I dount that Australia is much different in that respect.
.sorry if that disturbs you that women DO fancy other men, we are like men
in the sense that we are attracted to people other than our spouses..
That is true for some women, of course. I really believe that it was not
true for the women in my immediate family except for a great aunt or two.
But I believe most of the men in my family had no great desire to take on
additional responsibilities for the happiness and well being of more wives.
(Yes, that might sound sexist as well, but to me, it sounds responsible) Of
course both men and women have various desires. But we are not compelled to
act on all our transient desires.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helen" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
28 Nov 2006 06:42:44 AM |
|
|
"Gerald Fuller" <gfuller1930@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:S4tah.4267$1s6.1295@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Helen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:45699bac$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Just Wondering" <fmhlaw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HbOdnZrJIrMWctrYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
Helen wrote:
Snip
Ignorance or an assumption based on truth and media coverage. Tell me,
are you in favor of polygamy? IF so, how would you like to share your
wife with another man sexually? Hmmm, thought you would not.
If a man has multiple sex partners, why should he object too strongly if
his wives do the same? Of course it comes down eventually to cash! Most
men I believe would be reluctant to be forced by government to support the
"produce" of his wife's multiple sex partners.
Again, it is so far as the Church is concerned, a matter of what God
commands. If He commands we should do it or suffer the consequence.
Polygamy is a double standard, if a man can have multiple sex partners
under the guise of religious doctrine then why can not a woman'
If it is all the doings of mankind and God is not involved in any way,
then your argument is valid and you can campaign for it.
Snip
When it comes to polygamy,women had monogamy thrust upon them.
Having said that, I have very intention of keeping my marriage vowels as
does my husband. IF he were in the most unlikely event to take on another
wife, I would say To hedll with it, if you get some extra action then I
do too, to hell with what the "prophets " have told me.
Actually there was a time that my first wife essentially told me to go out
and get some on the side. (Some what? Not sure, but probably not love and
commitment.) Women may have had monogamy thrust upon them, but probably
not by society. That probably was thrust upon them as a means of providing
food and housing and a certain amount of protection for them and for the
children that they were almost certain to produce. But there have been
cultures in which the system was more open, and both men and women were
not as "selfish" and the whole society assumed responsibility for the
children.
WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.I always say this, but
it is true.
It is just as true that what is bad for the goose is bad for the gander,
and promisuous relationships, seem to be bad for both in our own society
in the USA. I dount that Australia is much different in that respect.
.sorry if that disturbs you that women DO fancy other men, we are like men
in the sense that we are attracted to people other than our spouses..
That is true for some women
It is true for most men and women.
Lust and love are different. Men think we always confuse sex wih
love...wrong, we do not. We are just as sexual as men, just more discreet
and less perverse.IMO. Mariage does not make one blind to the allure of
another...
, of course. I really believe that it was not true for the women in my
immediate family except for a great aunt or two. But I believe most of the
men in my family had no great desire to take on additional responsibilities
for the happiness and well being of more wives. (Yes, that might sound
sexist as well, but to me, it sounds responsible) Of course both men and
women have various desires. But we are not compelled to act on all our
transient desires.
No, we do not have to act upon them and that is what a good marriage is
based on. One man one wife.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gerald Fuller" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
28 Nov 2006 01:54:29 PM |
|
|
"Helen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:456c2ec8$0$9773$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
It is just as true that what is bad for the goose is bad for the gander,
and promisuous relationships, seem to be bad for both in our own society
in the USA. I dount that Australia is much different in that respect.
.sorry if that disturbs you that women DO fancy other men, we are like
men in the sense that we are attracted to people other than our spouses..
That is true for some women
It is true for most men and women.
Lust and love are different. Men think we always confuse sex wih
love...wrong, we do not. We are just as sexual as men, just more discreet
and less perverse.IMO. Mariage does not make one blind to the allure of
another...
I have not surveyed "most men and most women". Your use of "fancy" is not
quite and "American" term, but we do have the idea of a "passing fancy" that
is still perhaps in common use. It means that we can be attracted briefly
without dwelling on it. We can allow birds to fly over our heads without
wishing them to build nests in our hair.
Now I will take real exception to the sentence, "Men think we always confuse
sex with love." I am a man, and I know that women do not always confuse sex
with love any more than men do. But I also have known numerous women (have
participated in Church Disciplinary councils for some) who absolutely are
infatuated, or lusting for sexual pleasure with men that the claim to "love"
so much that they cannot control their "passion" but still are not willing
to marry them. (even if they are free to marry) I was involved in such a
disciplinary council with a woman who had such "love" for another woman. She
could not give up what they had, and of course they could not legally marry
in Illinois. She lost her membership as a result, but at the time she
thought it was worth it. They found some variety of woman who was ordained
by some variety of church, who performed a ceremony of some kind where they
"celebrated" their "love" and commitment. So far so good. Many of us who
considered ourselves her friends and whom she considered to be her friends
as well, received nice announcemnts and were invited to her web site to
celebrate with them. The entire thing saddened me. Maybe two years or so
later she and her friend were no longer together (not totally unlike
heterosexual couples who do not understand the difference between love and
its counterfiets) and not long after she was talking with the bishop wanting
to be allowed to be baptized and again be a member of the Church. In due
time she was accepted. Several of us remained her friends thoughout the
whole thing.
I am glad that when you said, "jus tmore discreet and less perverse" you
added IMO. After all, most of what I say here is, "IMO" or even "IMHO" and
sometimes IM(not so)HO. (Humble in this case is humble, rather than honest.)
, of course. I really believe that it was not true for the women in my
immediate family except for a great aunt or two. But I believe most of the
men in my family had no great desire to take on additional
responsibilities for the happiness and well being of more wives. (Yes,
that might sound sexist as well, but to me, it sounds responsible) Of
course both men and women have various desires. But we are not compelled
to act on all our transient desires.
No, we do not have to act upon them and that is what a good marriage is
based on. One man one wife.
I would not have wanted to live in the day of plural marriage. But I am not
so closed minded as to deny that a good marriage can exist with one man and
more than one wife. I am dreamer enough to believe that two or more women
may share one household. It seems to me to be more a matter of total
agreement on the part of all involved. That is probably almost an
insurmountable obstacle. But perfect love should be able to overcome it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: A misogynist is... |
04 Dec 2006 05:46:04 PM |
|
|
Note, despite the headers, this post is in reply to:
Hi Phineas ( and Helen, Gerald_Fuller ),
A misogynist is a fool who thinks women enjoy the same orgasm he does;
so he beats are rapes her until she " sees the light ".
Now, compare that with me...
I took Patinha in, along with Wimpels ( her puppy ),
because she had cracked ribs after her " fiancé " had beat her to get sex.
She could barely talk, breathe or turn over. Her cries were pathetic.
She had just spent the last 4 days in the hospital.
She was tresspassed from here ( and pet owners get evicted )...
( Yea, this is _Exactly_ how much most landlords care about people )
But I did it anyways, spending my last dime to get her and Wimpels
to her mom's house in Florida, fully knowing it might make me homelss too.
And what would've T.J. done ? butchered Wimpels and ate it.
Wouldn't want to soil any expensive rugs... Would we ?
I'm lucky he ran, tail between his legs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: A misogynist is... |
04 Dec 2006 06:50:49 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote
A misogynist is a fool who thinks women enjoy the same
orgasm he does; so he beats are rapes her until she
" sees the light ".
Now, compare that with me...
[hanson]
ahahahaha... compare that with you, Jeff, who hasn't seen
the light yet? Go do the enlightened thing & phone or see tj
with/at Admiral Hospital in Seattle, just a short way from you.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/670161779cd74c4b
Never mind you being a self-anointed anti-misogynist
as you turn into a total misanthrope, for not having visited tj
yet in his hour of need .... and for your own redemption to
become a sea farer.
---------------- Jeff's Pathetica and things ----
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Dec_4_6_@Cotse.NET...
Note, despite the headers, this post is in reply to:
phineaspuddleduck-EE6D0D.22205304122006@free.teranews.com
Hi Phineas ( and Helen, Gerald_Fuller ),
A misogynist is a fool who thinks women enjoy the same orgasm
he does; so he beats are rapes her until she " sees the light ".
Now, compare that with me...
I took Patinha in, along with Wimpels ( her puppy ),
because she had cracked ribs after her " fiancé " had beat her to get sex.
She could barely talk, breathe or turn over. Her cries were pathetic.
She had just spent the last 4 days in the hospital.
She was tresspassed from here ( and pet owners get evicted )...
( Yea, this is _Exactly_ how much most landlords care about people )
But I did it anyways, spending my last dime to get her and Wimpels
to her mom's house in Florida, fully knowing it might make me homelss too.
And what would've T.J. done ? butchered Wimpels and ate it.
Wouldn't want to soil any expensive rugs... Would we ?
I'm lucky he ran, tail between his legs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: A misogynist is... |
05 Dec 2006 12:08:49 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Dec_4_6_@Cotse.NET...
Note, despite the headers, this post is in reply to:
phineaspuddleduck-EE6D0D.22205304122006@free.teranews.com
Hi Phineas ( and Helen, Gerald_Fuller ),
A misogynist is a fool who thinks women enjoy the same orgasm he does;
so he beats are rapes her until she " sees the light ".
Do you have a citation for this definition please?
<snip remaining drivel>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A misogynist is... |
04 Dec 2006 05:49:39 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Dec_4_6_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
And what would've T.J. done ? butchered Wimpels and ate it.
Wouldn't want to soil any expensive rugs... Would we ?
I'm lucky he ran, tail between his legs.
TJ wouldn't have done anything as he never tidied his bedroom after.
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
28 Nov 2006 02:26:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:54:29 GMT, "Gerald Fuller"
<gfuller1930@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was involved in such a
disciplinary council with a woman who had such "love" for another woman. She
could not give up what they had, and of course they could not legally marry
in Illinois. She lost her membership as a result, but at the time she
thought it was worth it. They found some variety of woman who was ordained
by some variety of church, who performed a ceremony of some kind where they
"celebrated" their "love" and commitment. So far so good. Many of us who
considered ourselves her friends and whom she considered to be her friends
as well, received nice announcemnts and were invited to her web site to
celebrate with them. The entire thing saddened me.
What saddens me is that there are people such as yourself poking your
noses in where you're not wanted and specifying how other people
should lead their lives.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gerald Fuller" |
|
| Title: Re: Let others do the begging. |
28 Nov 2006 03:44:37 PM |
|
|
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hp6pm2ta7lh2td4th29b3nah0lccnbjci9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:54:29 GMT, "Gerald Fuller"
<gfuller1930@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was involved in such a
disciplinary council with a woman who had such "love" for another woman.
She
could not give up what they had, and of course they could not legally
marry
in Illinois. She lost her membership as a result, but at the time she
thought it was worth it. They found some variety of woman who was ordained
by some variety of church, who performed a ceremony of some kind where
they
"celebrated" their "love" and commitment. So far so good. Many of us who
considered ourselves her friends and whom she considered to be her friends
as well, received nice announcemnts and were invited to her web site to
celebrate with them. The entire thing saddened me.
What saddens me is that there are people such as yourself poking your
noses in where you're not wanted and specifying how other people
should lead their lives.
I take it that you are not intentionally or even consciously poking your
nose in where it is not wanted and criticizing how I lead my life. Well,
that is all right with me. I cannot dictate your thoughts, and for that I am
very happy.
I will have to say one more thing. That disciplinary council did not specify
and did not dictate how she should live her life. We did have a bit to say
about the consequences of her choice, but not about her choice per se. It
remained her choice, and as I said, we continued to be her friends and to
love her.
Try real hard and you may understand the difference between concern over
what people bring upon themselves, and intent to specify how people lead
their lives.
I apologize for what must have been my inadvertent failure to remove the
cross posting, but will leave it in this time, because probably the person
who was so distressed by my sticking my nose in where I was not wanted, that
he had to follow suit, must not be on alt.religion.mormon, since if he is,
he is again sticking his nose in where he is not really wanted in his
present attitude of superiority.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: It's better to help those already here. |
28 Nov 2006 04:21:16 PM |
|
|
I'm no polygamist, I live alone, my two kids are now independent adults,
I don't have a wife and I don't date... Yet I found Gerald Fuller to be
far and away more intelligent and responsible than Helen.
I have a vasectomy and think it's better to help those already here,
instead of birthing more kids that might be neglected by
a semi-insane, irresponsible " mother ".
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: It's better to help those already here. |
28 Nov 2006 04:49:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_28_1_@Cotse.NET...
I'm no polygamist, I live alone, my two kids are now independent adults,
And probably think of you as a total deadbeat.
I don't have a wife and I don't date...
This may be due to you not showering either. The two tend to be linked at a
fundamental level.
Yet I found Gerald Fuller to be
far and away more intelligent and responsible than Helen.
I have a vasectomy and think it's better to help those already here,
instead of birthing more kids that might be neglected by
a semi-insane, irresponsible " mother ".
Translation, "abandoned by a dead beat father who is so narcisstic he just
sits in his room, writing abysmally poor code for less than minimum wage,
while junkies and conmen trick him on an almost constant basis."
Jeff, did you send this to sci.physics on purpose?
Has Frazir turned up with his massive yacht for you yet? How does he
maintain his privacy when he invites 1600 guests to his floating parties
(which are held in places where no one has heard of the party going on).
Oh well, another round in the Relf-Frazir saga continues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Guarding privacy. |
28 Nov 2006 05:06:41 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake ( and Puddles, Gerald Fuller, Helen, etc. ),
You've thread jumped... confusing a lot of people, no doubt.
T.J. knows a lot of famous people, it seems to me,
which is all the more reason to guard his ( and their ) privacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Guarding privacy. |
28 Nov 2006 05:14:31 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_28_4_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake ( and Puddles, Gerald Fuller, Helen, etc. ),
You've thread jumped...
Awww. Sorry. Stop cross posting to disparate newsgroups then. Your posts are
off topic in pretty much every newsgroup.
Also, what gives you the right to say who can and cant join in other
threads? You did it.
confusing a lot of people, no doubt.
Well, as your posts are so clear I am sorry if mine are confusing.
T.J. knows a lot of famous people, it seems to me,
He only knows them in the same way everyone else does.
which is all the more reason to guard his ( and their ) privacy.
Nonsense. He claims to be eight feet tall for a start. (And says he was
taller in the past). Trust me, if an 8' tall billionaire threw a party for
1600 people, it _would_ get leaked. The waiters would get massive payouts
from the tabloids for photos and there is no way _all_ of them would resist.
During his travels, people _would_ notice the eight foot tall idiot walking
around. He claimed to have been in the same part of London as I was about 18
months ago. He was not there. He asserted he was for months - doing his
usual routine of pasting Google image links and the like to "support" his
claims and only when I pointed out I had been in the street at the same time
as him (and the Thames didn't go where he claimed) did he decide he was
going to "have me killed" and then ranted at me for months.
You are one of the following:
1. So gullible you really shouldn't be allowed out with out a carer
2. So naive you really must be about five years old
3. Insane
4. Lying about believing Frazir (which probably also means you are insane).
Which is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
28 Nov 2006 06:09:08 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake,
T.J. says he's a Navajo/Russian/Candian/American who's now 7'8", 400 pounds.
His ship is 30 thousand tons, 600' x 120', and can go 100 MPH.
He lives at sea, permanently ( yielding tax advantages, for one thing ).
He's owns lots of ships, which he uses lots of different ways.
He has container ships, he Collects/Restores ships ( and cars ),
he's a deep sea explorer, and he has ships that are, essentially,
movable warehouses.
He has forests, oil wells, sugar cane farms and paper mills...
all privately owned. He can't own stocks because he's too much of an insider.
So Forbes can't really track him ( thank God ).
Not all billionaires own publicly traded stocks,
not all are as famous and English-literate as Bill Gates.
For example, How much did you know about Abramovish and McCaw ? nothing.
By the way, it looks like T.J.'s good friend, Roman Abramovish,
might have to pay his soon-to-be-ex a record breaking GB£ 5.5 billion !
What's more... T.J.'s buddy, Craig McCaw, might be the current record holder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 01:35:40 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_28_5_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake,
T.J. says he's a Navajo/Russian/Candian/American who's now 7'8", 400
pounds.
His ship is 30 thousand tons, 600' x 120', and can go 100 MPH.
He lives at sea, permanently ( yielding tax advantages, for one thing ).
Yes. He _says_ these things and despite _all_ the evidence to the contrary,
you believe EVERYTHING he says.
You need to ask yourself about this.
He's owns lots of ships, which he uses lots of different ways.
No he doesnt. He just tells you he does.
He has container ships, he Collects/Restores ships ( and cars ),
he's a deep sea explorer, and he has ships that are, essentially,
movable warehouses.
No, he just tells you this.
He has forests, oil wells, sugar cane farms and paper mills...
all privately owned. He can't own stocks because he's too much of an
insider.
So Forbes can't really track him ( thank God ).
Not all billionaires own publicly traded stocks,
not all are as famous and English-literate as Bill Gates.
For example, How much did you know about Abramovish and McCaw ? nothing.
A *lot* more than I know about Frazir for real. And, importantly, I can find
out about them. TJ is the most obvious secret person on Earth. No one who
saw him would forget him.
By the way, it looks like T.J.'s good friend, Roman Abramovish,
might have to pay his soon-to-be-ex a record breaking GB£ 5.5 billion !
What's more... T.J.'s buddy, Craig McCaw, might be the current record
holder.
Trust us when we[tinw] tell you TJ does not have Craig McCaw as a buddy and
Roman Abramovich is certainly not his "good friend."
I can verify this in the next week or so though. I have a friend who does
some contract building work for Chelsea and he has invited me to a meeting
there on 3 Dec. Abramovich should be there so I fully intend to ask him.
Shall we guess what his answer will be?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 05:46:05 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, First off, you won't be able to ask Abramovich any questions.
Second, he wouldn't answer you because
you're obviously attempting to invade his ( and T.J.'s ) privacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 06:04:07 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_29_4_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, First off, you won't be able to ask Abramovich any questions.
Why not? Unlike TJ he is not imaginary. Last time I checked, I was not
imaginary. Strikes me that I will be able to ask questions.
Obviously assuming he is there of course. Tell you what, you ask TJ if
Abramovich will be there and if not, who will head up the meeting.
TJ will be able to tell you everything about the meeting, I assume.
Second, he wouldn't answer you because
you're obviously attempting to invade his ( and T.J.'s ) privacy.
Ah, you really have no idea why I am going to the meeting there do you? Give
them a ring - you can find the contact details if you want. You may even be
able to work out the name of my company if you ask the right questions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 01:48:59 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
Trust us when we[tinw] tell you TJ does not have Craig McCaw as a buddy and
Roman Abramovich is certainly not his "good friend."
I can verify this in the next week or so though. I have a friend who does
some contract building work for Chelsea and he has invited me to a meeting
there on 3 Dec. Abramovich should be there so I fully intend to ask him.
Shall we guess what his answer will be?
Prediction:
<Jeff Relf>
Hi_T_wake. You say Abromovich laughed and assured you there's
no such person. This proves that he is good buddies with TJ, because
why else would he bother to protect the privacy of an 8 foot fellow
billionaire?
</Relf>
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 02:14:06 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164829739.547804.17550@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
Trust us when we[tinw] tell you TJ does not have Craig McCaw as a buddy
and
Roman Abramovich is certainly not his "good friend."
I can verify this in the next week or so though. I have a friend who does
some contract building work for Chelsea and he has invited me to a
meeting
there on 3 Dec. Abramovich should be there so I fully intend to ask him.
Shall we guess what his answer will be?
Prediction:
<Jeff Relf>
Hi_T_wake. You say Abromovich laughed and assured you there's
no such person. This proves that he is good buddies with TJ, because
why else would he bother to protect the privacy of an 8 foot fellow
billionaire?
</Relf>
Sadly, I suspect that is going to be the crux of the Relfian response.
Although, you never know. Abramovich may say - yes I know him, his real name
is [insert] but I *really*doubt that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 03:56:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1164829739.547804.17550@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
<Jeff Relf>
Hi_T_wake. You say Abromovich laughed and assured you there's
no such person. This proves that he is good buddies with TJ, because
why else would he bother to protect the privacy of an 8 foot fellow
billionaire?
</Relf>
Interesting - we may be watching the creation of a Reality Distortion
Field ;-)
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 12:09:59 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi T_Wake,
T.J. says he's a Navajo/Russian/Candian/American who's now 7'8", 400 pounds.
Yes he does. He says those things.
His ship is 30 thousand tons, 600' x 120', and can go 100 MPH.
He lives at sea, permanently ( yielding tax advantages, for one thing ).
Yes, he says those things, too.
He's owns lots of ships, which he uses lots of different ways.
No he doesn't. But he says those things.
He has container ships, he Collects/Restores ships ( and cars ),
he's a deep sea explorer, and he has ships that are, essentially,
movable warehouses.
He has forests, oil wells, sugar cane farms and paper mills...
all privately owned.
No he doesn't. But he says he does.
He can't own stocks because he's too much of an insider.
That is patent nonsense. You are claiming that, for instance,
members of the Walton family can't own stock in Walmart. Do
you really believe that?
So Forbes can't really track him ( thank God ).
Yet he has already said he's on the Forbes list. If that is
true Forbes does have an estimate of his welath, accurate or
not. If that is true, Forbes also has such things as a name
and residence attached to him. Do you think that's true?
For example, How much did you know about Abramovish and McCaw ? nothing.
Nothing? I have an estimate of his net worth.
http://www.forbes.com//lists/2006/10/DG3G.html
I have a photograph:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Abramovich-Billionaire-Nowhere-Dominic-Midgley/dp/0007189834
I have a biography:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/abramovich.shtml
I have from that biography a connection with Chelsea Football
Club. Unlike TJ-style claims, this can be independently
verified
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/351/14932_richest.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409324&in_page_id=1770
Note from the Forbes article that he has liquidated his largest
corporate
assets. So however they are assessing net worth, it isn't by
stock holdings.
So I can provide evidence that Abromovich is what he claims to be. Can
TJ do the same?
By the way, I assume you're posting this from onboard ship, right?
How's that going? How did your phone conversation with TJ go?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
29 Nov 2006 06:30:59 PM |
|
|
Hi Randy_Poe, Abromovich is facing a 5.5 billion pound divorce settlement.
Forbes can guestimate his wealth from his previous stock holdings.
T.J. says he never used publicly traded stocks to fund his enterprises,
he stayed private by borrowing on contracts ( e.g. contracts with Wal-Mart );
so Forbes never had a good handle on his net worth ( too bad for them ).
You can Google for " Abromovich " because you know his name,
you can't do the same with " T.J. " ( too bad for you ).
T.J. wanted to give me a lot of money,
but that meant I'd have to protect it by being a permanent resident of the sea.
Enter Fearless_Johnny. But I kept telling T.J. I didn't want to be rich,
so I guess he trashed that idea ( either that, or Fearless isn't ready yet ).
I told T.J. I don't like fancy cars, ships and clothes,
nor did I wish to be anyone's boss or landlord.
T.J. doesn't really care what you think of him;
he knows you are, and will always be, ignorant of him and people like him.
I like T.J.; his problems with " bitches " and " whores ",
despite his vast weath, intrigues me... I hope he comes back soon.
I've never met T.J. face to face, nor talked with him outside this forum,
so I'm not 100 percent sure that he is who he sais he is.
And I know you know _Much_ less about T.J. than I do.
So what makes you so sure that he's _Not_ who he sais he is ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
30 Nov 2006 11:30:55 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_29_5_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Randy_Poe, Abromovich is facing a 5.5 billion pound divorce
settlement.
Forbes can guestimate his wealth from his previous stock holdings.
T.J. says he never used publicly traded stocks to fund his enterprises,
he stayed private by borrowing on contracts ( e.g. contracts with
Wal-Mart );
so Forbes never had a good handle on his net worth ( too bad for them ).
Irrelevant.
You claimed "nothing" was known about Abramovich, when in reality it is
trivial to find out all manner of details about him.
You can Google for " Abromovich " because you know his name,
you can't do the same with " T.J. " ( too bad for you ).
Oh, but you can.
T.J. wanted to give me a lot of money,
but that meant I'd have to protect it by being a permanent resident of the
sea.
Nonsense. You are trying to rewrite history. We all saw the exchange of
posts.
We all knew you would get nothing but you persisted, until as recently as
Monday, to claim TJ would come through for you.
Two days after the "deal date" and what have you got (other than egg on your
face, again)?
Enter Fearless_Johnny. But I kept telling T.J. I didn't want to be
rich,
so I guess he trashed that idea ( either that, or Fearless isn't ready
yet ).
Stop guessing and try thinking.
Dont you wonder why _everyone_ else predicted this?
I told T.J. I don't like fancy cars, ships and clothes,
nor did I wish to be anyone's boss or landlord.
T.J. doesn't really care what you think of him;
Obviously. He knows we all think he is fantasising. He probably knows he is
making things up.
Wonder which guillable fool is left?
he knows you are, and will always be, ignorant of him and people like him.
Well several times I work for very rich people (normally the ones who own
things) and they are almost to a man, _not_ like TJ and generally quite easy
to understand. I have visted mental institutions where people _like_ frazir
hang out and yes, you are right, I dont understand them.
I like T.J.; his problems with " bitches " and " whores ",
despite his vast weath, intrigues me... I hope he comes back soon.
He will when he thinks the coast is clear for coming up with another
"non-promise."
I've never met T.J. face to face, nor talked with him outside this forum,
so I'm not 100 percent sure that he is who he sais he is.
Blimey. Light at the end of the tunnel.
And I know you know _Much_ less about T.J. than I do.
No you dont. You dont know anything about me. You certainly have no ability
to determine what I know and dont know. If you did, you'd give up on 5
spatial dimensions.
So what makes you so sure that he's _Not_ who he sais he is ?
His posting history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Alimony, T.J., Abramovish and McCaw. |
30 Nov 2006 12:31:10 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_29_5_@Cotse.NET...
So what makes you so sure that he's _Not_ who he sais he is ?
His posting history.
An interesting exercise: Go back to the beginning of that
posting history, which seems to start around Dec 2000. Less
of the billionaire stuff, more about rants about how the whole
universe is written on iron atoms or something like that, and
some semi-religious ranting.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
