SNOT for Scottie: Stocking Stuffer

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless, did you ask Santa for another portion of brains? You have to keep
asking every year. There's probably a long waiting list.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Oops! My bad.

> > Witless, did you ask Santa for another portion of brains? You have to keep
> > asking every year. There's probably a long waiting list.
>
> I asked Santa to get you a life.
> He said some things only God can heal.

Who brought you a shiny new sense of humor? The Easter Bunny, maybe?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 24, 1:29*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:52*am, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Oops! My bad.
>
> > > > Witless, did you ask Santa for another portion of brains? You have to keep
> > > > asking every year. There's probably a long waiting list.
>
> > > *I asked Santa to get you a life.
> > > He said some things only God can heal.
>
> > Who brought you a shiny new sense of humor? The Easter Bunny, maybe?
>
> *It must really suck for you to be an atheist.

Why?

> *Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
> who cares for you and you can't even long for
> divine intervention.

An interesting dilemma, 2pid.

Would I rather have no hope, or would I rather have somebody who can
live with your stupidity care for me? They must not be terribly bright
either or they'd have gone insane long ago.

> I'd wish you a Merry Xmas but you're beyond wishes
> and even prayers. *A ritual sacrifice is your
> best hope. *In your behalf, I paused briefly this morning
> and said, "For George", then I flushed.

So you do your 2pids in the morning too. At least we have that going
for us, which is good.

It has to be an act. There is no way somebody could really be as
stupid as 2pid is and survive.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:


the flip side:


*It must really suck for you to be religious.
*Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
who cares for you is a nonexistent mythical creature and you long for
divine intervention that will never come

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 25, 9:52*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > the flip side:
>
> > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > *who cares for you
>
> * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.

Did you get a new dictionary? If anybody really cared for you they
would've gotten you one.

Maybe they don't 'love' you. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > the flip side:
>
> > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > *who cares for you
>
> * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.
>
> ScottW

Ok, so prove the existence of God.
After you have done that, prove to
us the exact nature of this God..

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 25, 11:08*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > the flip side:
>
> > > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > > *who cares for you
>
> > * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.
>
> > ScottW
>
> Ok, so prove the existence of God.
> After you have done that, prove to
> us the exact nature of this God..

"Some things are just not knowable." --Donald Rumsfeld.

"I am a imbecile." --2pid

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Dec, 12:25, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 11:08*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > the flip side:
>
> > > > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > > > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > > > *who cares for you
>
> > > * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > Ok, so prove the existence of God.
> > After you have done that, prove to
> > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> "Some things are just not knowable." --Donald Rumsfeld.
>

there are things you know that you know you know
there are things you know that you don't know you know.
there are things that you don't know that know you don't know
and there are things thet you don't know that you don't know you don't
know - Donald Rumsfeld

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 11:17*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 25, 9:08*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > the flip side:
>
> > > > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > > > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > > > *who cares for you
>
> > > * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > Ok, so prove the existence of God.
>
> *Not necessary to me. I am not alone.
> Is is necessary for you?

Parting the Red Sea was one helluva an engineering feat.

> > After you have done that, prove to
> > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> That would require you to leave this
> world. Are you in a rush?

2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.

Heaven is not for those who only 'think' of themselves, 2pid. Read
your bible and use the new dictionary that you hopefully got for
Christmas. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another flooby-dusting JEE-zus freak comes out of his Holy Closet of
Blessed Fairy Tales.

> > > > After you have done that, prove to
> > > > us the exact nature of this God..
> >
> > > That would require you to leave this
> > > world. Are you in a rush?
> >
> > 2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.
>
> I'm willing to wait to find out.

I suppose this shouldn't surprise anybody. A moron who signs up for
instruction in having "faith" is almost certainly too stupid to see through
what's obviously a huge crock of ****.

Scooter, one question: Does your jeebus dogma protect you from getting
ripped off in hifi salons?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 11:52*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:20*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > Parting the Red Sea was one helluva an engineering feat.
>
> *The things you don't know and don't know you don't know
> grows.

So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
remarkable engineering feat?

Do tell. LoL.

> > > > After you have done that, prove to
> > > > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> > > That would require you to leave this
> > > world. Are you in a rush?
>
> > 2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.
>
> *I'm willing to wait to find out.

I already know that answer, 2pid. If there is a heaven and hell, you
do not meet the entrance requirements spelled out oin the bible. If
there isn't a heaven and hell, it doesn't matter.

We can safely conclude that you're out either way. LoL.

> > Heaven is not for those who only 'think' of themselves, 2pid.
>
> * LoL. *So you poll watch just in case it will help you
> get into heaven. *I don't think heaven is for hypocrites.

Why, we agree! LoL.

> > Read your bible
>
> *No mention of poll watching as sure way to save your
> soul. *

There is much written about serving though, 2pid.

My poll watching really upset you. I note that Minnesota does not have
professional election judges, as apparently your state does. Either
way, I note that you (once again) refuse to serve and merely whine
from the sidelines. LoL.

> Sorry.

There's no need to apologize, 2pid. It's not me that is harboring
false and forlorn hopes. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 12:17, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 25, 9:08*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > the flip side:
>
> > > > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > > > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > > > *who cares for you
>
> > > * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > Ok, so prove the existence of God.
>
> *Not necessary to me. I am not alone.
> Is is necessary for you?
>

then you believe in floobydust.


> > After you have done that, prove to
> > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> That would require you to leave this
> world. Are you in a rush?
>


you beleive in floobydust
that's fine, as long as you can admit it

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 12:55, George M. Middius > wrote:


>
> Scooter, one question: Does your jeebus dogma protect you from getting
> ripped off in hifi salons?


Apparantly, it grants "at least" a partial immunity to floobydust.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 12:54*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:02*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 11:52*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 9:20*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > Parting the Red Sea was one helluva an engineering feat.
>
> > > *The things you don't know and don't know you don't know
> > > grows.
>
> > So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
> > remarkable engineering feat?
>
> *You can't even postulate all the possibilities.

There's one I can discard out-of-hand, 2pid.

> > Do tell. LoL.
>
> > > > > > After you have done that, prove to
> > > > > > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> > > > > That would require you to leave this
> > > > > world. Are you in a rush?
>
> > > > 2pid 'thinks' he's going to Heaven.
>
> > > *I'm willing to wait to find out.
>
> > I already know that answer, 2pid. If there is a heaven and hell, you
> > do not meet the entrance requirements spelled out oin the bible.
>
> * So you believe in the bible now and usenet tells you all
> you need to know. *LoL.
>
> > *If
> > there isn't a heaven and hell, it doesn't matter.
>
> *What an odd conclusion. *I think it does matter if
> there isn't. *Why do you think your fate is shared
> by others? * Another rather arrogant presumption
> on your part.

Learn to read, 2pid.

> > We can safely conclude that you're out either way. LoL.
>
> Hmmm. *No I don't think the bible says making such presumptions
> is safe for you.

That presumes the bible is an accurate representation of a
supernatural being's word. LoL.

> > > > Heaven is not for those who only 'think' of themselves, 2pid.
>
> > > * LoL. *So you poll watch just in case it will help you
> > > get into heaven. *I don't think heaven is for hypocrites.
>
> > Why, we agree! LoL.
>
> > > > Read your bible
>
> > > *No mention of poll watching as sure way to save your
> > > soul. *
>
> > There is much written about serving though, 2pid.
>
> Who did you serve? *Was it God?

No, the question at hand is if you've ever served anybody but
yourself, 2pid.

> > My poll watching really upset you.
>
> No, I think it's funny that you believe such trifles are
> redeeming to you. * Perhaps, to you, they are.

Where did I say that, 2pid?

What an imbecile. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 13:45, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:24*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Dec, 12:17, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 25, 9:08*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Dec, 10:52, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 24, 12:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 24 Dec, 14:29, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > the flip side:
>
> > > > > > **It must really suck for you to be religious.
> > > > > > **Your situation is hopeless, the only one who
> > > > > > *who cares for you
>
> > > > > * bzzzzt. *Wrong already. *Thanks for trying.
>
> > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > Ok, so prove the existence of God.
>
> > > *Not necessary to me. I am not alone.
> > > Is is necessary for you?
>
> > then you believe in floobydust.
>
> * You are too easily confused.
> * Go back 2 steps and see where you
> *confused God and family.
>

you said
" It must really suck for you to be an atheist.
Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
who cares for you and you can't even long for
divine intervention. "

that is all about god vs atheism.

there is no mention of family

>
>
> > > > After you have done that, prove to
> > > > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> > > That would require you to leave this
> > > world. Are you in a rush?
>
> > you beleive in floobydust
> > that's fine, as long as you can admit it
>
> *Do I bother to tell you my beliefs?
> *No. *You just get yourself all twisted
> in your presumptions.
>

obviously, you profess not to be an atheist.

and you infer that you believe in a supreme being.

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW > wrote:

>
> > So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
> > remarkable engineering feat?
>
> *You can't even postulate all the possibilities.
>

here is where you can hlep us all out
by applying some science and reasonsing
to the published reports of the parting of the Red Sea.
please explain

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 14:19, ScottW > wrote:

>
> > > * You are too easily confused.
> > > * Go back 2 steps and see where you
> > > *confused God and family.
>
> > you said
> > " It must really suck for you to be an atheist.
> > *Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
> > who cares for you and you can't even long for
> > divine intervention. "
>
> > that is all about god vs atheism.
>
> *Not quite all.
>
>
>
> > there is no mention of family
>
> *You really need things spelled out in
> blunt fashion at times.
>

If you wrote better, we wouldn't
have that problem. You eveidently
said one thing, and meant another.


you said
" It must really suck for you to be an atheist.
Your situation is hopeless, you've got no one
who cares for you and you can't even long for
divine intervention. "


The first sentence in your paragraph criticizes
atheism. The following sentences in a paragraph
would be expected to expound about that point.
Your second sentence, saying that no one cares
about George, would be taken to mean that
"GOD" does not care, especially, when the second half of'the sentnece
refers to a
lack of possible divine intervention.






>
>
> > > > > > After you have done that, prove to
> > > > > > us the exact nature of this God..
>
> > > > > That would require you to leave this
> > > > > world. Are you in a rush?
>
> > > > you beleive in floobydust
> > > > that's fine, as long as you can admit it
>
> > > *Do I bother to tell you my beliefs?
> > > *No. *You just get yourself all twisted
> > > in your presumptions.
>
> > obviously, you profess not to be an atheist.
>
> *One possibility among infinite possibilities
> excluded.
>
>

There are three possibilities, you are an atheist
you are an agnostic, or you believe in the'existence of some type
Supreme Being, or Beings.




>
> > and you infer that you believe in a supreme being.
>
> Believe is not what I have inferred.
>

[Clyde Slick]

On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
> > > > remarkable engineering feat?
>
> > > *You can't even postulate all the possibilities.
>
> > here is where you can hlep us all out
> > by applying some science and reasonsing
> > to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
> > please explain
>
> *Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
> of man be sufficient to provide explanation?
>

apply that to the rest of your life

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 26, 5:19*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:

> > So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
> > part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.
>
> *What is supernatural but that which is not understood?

Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
"supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.

That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
will sound different. But now you find yourself believing in that
"floobydust" you rail about.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid. So the answer is "Yes,
2pid believes that seas can part, locusts can be controlled by a
supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
stereo".

> Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
> "supernatural" to ancient man.

Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.

So your argument is very flawed.

> > Fine. We've established a baseline for your imbecility. LoL.
>
> *Yawn.

I agree: that *was* pretty obvious.

> > Not to be redundant, 2pid, but you're not heaven material. LoL.
>
> *There you go again with your religious judgements.
> For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
> of preaching.

Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
have, cover to cover.

And unlike you, I know and I understand what words mean. You are as
much heaven material as GOIA is. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

duh-Scottie falls down and goes BOOM!

> > > > So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
> > > > part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.

> > > *What is supernatural but that which is not understood?

I think Scottie's been cribbing his reverend's sermons.

> > Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
> > "supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.
> >
> > That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
> > will sound different.
>
> Sounds like a personal decision on your part.
> Do you lack confidence in your decision?

Yapper, he was talking about you and your extremely stupid 'mind'. The
question on the table, which you've ducked twice now, is how you can
believe in miraculous, inexplicable events like the Red Sea business but
simultaneously demand that a triviality like a cable be 'tested' to death?

Another way of looking at this foolishness is to imagine a big brick wall
dividing your 'mind'. On this side of the wall is everything you 'think'
you 'understand', and on the other side is everything you've sworn never to
understand or even question. You dare not peek over the wall because you're
afraid "God" will smite you.

If you weren't a moron, I'd refer you to a well-known children's book that
addressed the question of faith vs. reason in an enduringly simple way.

> > But now you find yourself believing in that
> > "floobydust" you rail about.
>
> I prefer to rail about stardust. Most of the floobydust
> railers don't know the difference between floobydust
> and dirt.

Apparently, you're unable to comprehend the point. Thank you for agreeing
that you're a prize-winning moron.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Apparently, Kroologic is contagious.

> > > > Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
> > > > "supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.
> >
> > > > That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
> > > > will sound different.
> >
> > > * Sounds like a personal decision on your part.
> > > * Do you lack confidence in your decision?
> >
> > Yapper, he was talking about you and your extremely stupid 'mind'.
>
> "I personally don't believe"....words have meaning George.

Not to you, apparently. Words form sentences, and sentences form
paragraphs. You and Arnii love to pick out a few easy ones and ignore the
rest.

> > question on the table, which you've ducked twice now, is how you can
> > believe in miraculous, inexplicable events like the Red Sea business
>
> Don't presume that I believe. I simply take a position that some
> things are not known. Could the Red Sea be merely a fictitious
> event?

If you mean the alleged "parting", the answer is a resounding YES. It's
impossible, it could never happen, and it did not happen.

Anybody who pretends there's some possibility that it did happen is deluded
and naive or stupid and uneducated. Or both.

> Could the telling of the story have created a
> significant impact on the history of mankind?

If you're positing the novel idea that religion has influenced the course
of human history, I'll have to go to the library and check on that. Don't
hold your breath waiting for a definitive answer.

> Could there have been a purpose?

Do you mean a purpose served by inventing fairy tales to beguile the masses
into following the tale-tellers and giving up part of their hard-earned
cash? Another obscure question that forces me to reconsider everything I've
ever learned about human history.

> Are you bound by literal interpretation?

<sigh>

We're talking about you and your whacked-out religious fantasies. I reject
every impossibility recounted in your precious Bible. There was no parting
of the sea, no water into wine, no trip in the belly of a big fish. The
only possibly true parts of your beloved Bible are the names of the people.
Nobody got turned into a pillar of salt, nobody restored a blind man's
sight, nobody lived 900 years.

I also reject the notion that these fairy tales have value if viewed as
gussied-up morality tales. It's nonsensical to say that right and wrong
wouldn't exist if not for "God".

You know what's evil, Witless? Evil is using up the finite resources of our
planet in a rush to line our own pockets. The victims of this evil are the
other living things on earth.

> I think of all these questions only one is known.

You don't 'think' in any sense recognizable to adult humans.

> > Another way of looking at this foolishness is to imagine a big brick wall
> > dividing your 'mind'.
>
> The difference between you and me is obviously
> that you have placed bricks in your brain.

As usual, it's down to the IKYABWAIs with you.

Couldn't you please get some smarts? Just a little bit? Pretty please?

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


> > You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
> > *So the answer is "Yes,
> > 2pid believes that seas can part,
>
> *So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
> physics?
> You obviously don't know much about physics.
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/20/7861/0033419....
>


I knew it!!!
Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.


> > locusts can be controlled by a
> > supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
> > stereo".
>
> > > Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
> > > "supernatural" to ancient man.
>
> > Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
> > gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
> > reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.
>
> *Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity.
> *Does that make it "supernatural"?
>
>
>

> > > *There you go again with your religious judgements.
> > > For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
> > > of preaching.
>
> > Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
> > have, cover to cover.
>
> *I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
> very important concepts.
>

SUCH AS:
the earth is 5000 years old
It was created in six days
all of the life forms other than humans were created in one day
the two original humans were created in one day
all other humans trace their origin two these two original humans
all of the life forms other than humans existed all at the same time,
on'the first day of lif'e creation.
All of the life forms ever created, including humans, lived on the
second day of the creation of life, also beiing the first day of the
creation of humans, except any life forms made extinct by the second
day.
Humans lived at the same time as did dinosaurs, unless dinosaurs lived
only one daqy and became extinct.
On the seventh day, on his day off after all that work, God took a day
off and relaxed by enjoying his audio hobby and created different
forms of cables, and made some of them them sound different to some
people, but not to others.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 12:06, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 3:30*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Dec, 18:05, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 11:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
> > > > > > > > remarkable engineering feat?
>
> > > > > > > *You can't even postulate all the possibilities.
>
> > > > > > here is where you can hlep us all out
> > > > > > by applying some science and reasonsing
> > > > > > to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
> > > > > > please explain
>
> > > > > *Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
> > > > > of man be sufficient to provide explanation?
>
> > > > apply that to the rest of your life-
>
> > > More demands.
> > > Go ahead if it suits you. I'll apply when
> > > appropriate and as I choose.
> > > It's called freedom.
>
> > freedom to be a hypocrite
>
> Freedom from the limits of those
> with a limited perspective.
>
> > science one minute, floobydust the next
> > its fine by me, as long as you acknowledge
> > your inconsistentcy, and don't demand science from others
>
> Some things are known. Some things are not known.
> The trick is to know the difference.
> Things referred to as "floobydust" are false
> claims. *How do we know they are false?
> They are about things that are known.
>
> ScottW-

There are things that you don't know that you don't know.
There are things that you think you know, but you you don't know

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 10:58*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 5:19*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 3:04*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
> > > > part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.
>
> > > *What is supernatural but that which is not understood?
>
> > Um, things that fall outside of natural laws. That's what I'd call
> > "supernatural". That's what that word means, 2pid.
>
> > That's why I personally don't believe that cables with the same RLC
> > will sound different.
>
> * Sounds like a personal decision on your part.
> * Do you lack confidence in your decision?

No, I don't 2pid. I do not have one iota of doubt.

But your argument is that because some people *do* believe that cables
can sound different it is within the "continuum of possibilities". So
your arguments for the necessity of DBTs is fatally flawed.

I chose "bielieve" specifically for this reason, 2pid.

> > But now you find yourself believing in that
> > "floobydust" you rail about.
>
> * I prefer to rail about stardust. *Most of the floobydust
> railers don't know the difference between floobydust
> and dirt.

And yet you're now firmly in their camp. I'm not sure they wanted the
endorsement of a well-known imbecile though.

> > You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
> > *So the answer is "Yes,
> > 2pid believes that seas can part,
>
> *So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
> physics?
> You obviously don't know much about physics.
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/20/7861/0033419....

So they were able to take a powerful magnet and "part" about 22mm of
water.

Further, since this is a natural phenomenon, gos would have played no
part in it. Moses therefore lied attributing his magnetic smoke-and-
mirrors trick to a diety.

> > locusts can be controlled by a
> > supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
> > stereo".
>
> > > Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
> > > "supernatural" to ancient man.
>
> > Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
> > gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
> > reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.
>
> *Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity.
> *Does that make it "supernatural"?

Are you claiming it to be?

I'd say that man undertstands conductivity. Man may not understand
conductivity in all environments yet.

> > So your argument is very flawed.
>
> *The flaw is in your limited intellect.

Oh, ouch!

So let me ask you this, straight up: do you believe the miracles
performed in the bible are accurate historically and reflect actual
events that really happened?

> > Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
> > have, cover to cover.
>
> *I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
> very important concepts.

What, that Jesus was an advocate of the downtrodden and did not call
an inability to get healthcare "laziness"?

Another straight-up question, 2pid: Do you believe that you act in a
"good, Christian" manner?

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 13:03, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 12:06, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 3:30*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 26 Dec, 18:05, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 11:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
> > > > > > > > > > remarkable engineering feat?
>
> > > > > > > > > *You can't even postulate all the possibilities.
>
> > > > > > > > here is where you can hlep us all out
> > > > > > > > by applying some science and reasonsing
> > > > > > > > to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
> > > > > > > > please explain
>
> > > > > > > *Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
> > > > > > > of man be sufficient to provide explanation?
>
> > > > > > apply that to the rest of your life-
>
> > > > > More demands.
> > > > > Go ahead if it suits you. I'll apply when
> > > > > appropriate and as I choose.
> > > > > It's called freedom.
>
> > > > freedom to be a hypocrite
>
> > > Freedom from the limits of those
> > > with a limited perspective.
>
> > > > science one minute, floobydust the next
> > > > its fine by me, as long as you acknowledge
> > > > your inconsistentcy, and don't demand science from others
>
> > > Some things are known. Some things are not known.
> > > The trick is to know the difference.
> > > Things referred to as "floobydust" are false
> > > claims. *How do we know they are false?
> > > They are about things that are known.
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > There are things that you don't know that you don't know.
> > There are things that you think you know, but you you don't know
>
> *Does this imply that nothing is known? *I hope not.
>

History has shown man as" knowing" lots of things
that were later shown to be misunderstood

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 11:07*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> duh-Scottie falls down and goes BOOM!
>
> > > > > So to you there can be a supernatural being who can swoop in at will,
> > > > > part oceans, visit plagues, and so on.
> > > > *What is supernatural but that which is not understood?
>
> I think Scottie's been cribbing his reverend's sermons.

That might be it. I attribute it to 2pid eating more Chinese food
recently.

> Apparently, you're unable to comprehend the point. Thank you for agreeing
> that you're a prize-winning moron.

But you've got to admit that 2pid's new religious personna is a hoot.
This is far funnier than when he tries to hang with people as an
'expert' in areas he knows nothing about, such as in military matters.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 13:02, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:57*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
> > > > *So the answer is "Yes,
> > > > 2pid believes that seas can part,
>
> > > *So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
> > > physics?
> > > You obviously don't know much about physics.
>
> > >http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/20/7861/0033419...
>
> > I knew it!!!
> > Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.
>
> > > > locusts can be controlled by a
> > > > supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
> > > > stereo".
>
> > > > > Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
> > > > > "supernatural" to ancient man.
>
> > > > Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
> > > > gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
> > > > reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.
>
> > > *Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity..
> > > *Does that make it "supernatural"?
>
> > > > > *There you go again with your religious judgements.
> > > > > For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
> > > > > of preaching.
>
> > > > Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible.. I
> > > > have, cover to cover.
>
> > > *I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
> > > very important concepts.
>
> *What part of concept is confusing you?
>
> ScottW-


well, we have already found a bunch of lies, who
knows how much of the other stuff are lies also.
50% may be lies, 50% may be truth,
and we can waste a lifetime trying to
figure out which is which.

As far as your 'important ' concepts go,
once we get past the 10 Commnandments,
most of which are self evident anyway,
and found in other writings, the rest is redundant.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 12:00*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:45*am, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Apparently, Kroologic is contagious.
>
> > Do you mean a purpose served by inventing fairy tales to beguile the masses
> > into following the tale-tellers and giving up part of their hard-earned
> > cash?
>
> * Little different than a political campaign and sssshtards devotion
> to worship at the polling station.

What did I "worship", 2pid?

Let's try 2pidspeak: The unknown is such that many recognize about
others that which others say about you.

Translation: You're an imbecile and we all know it.

> > *Another obscure question that forces me to reconsider everything I've
> > ever learned about human history.
>
> *Your welcome.

What about his welcome?

> > > Are you bound by literal interpretation?
>
> > <sigh>
>
> > We're talking about you and your whacked-out religious fantasies.
>
> *Why do you insist on such things. *Your devotion to literal
> interpretation is also fantasy.

I'm sure that you meant "you're".

And as I've said, you're now an advocate of the Qu'ran, the Bagavhad
Gita, any book published by the Church of Scientology, the Book of
Mormon, and on and on. Who are you to judge which one is "true" or
"correct"? Is your god any more valid than Apollo?

Religion is 'helping' these people too.

> > *I reject
> > every impossibility recounted in your precious Bible.
>
> *Such a closed mind.

LoL.

> > *There was no parting
> > of the sea, no water into wine, no trip in the belly of a big fish. The
> > only possibly true parts of your beloved Bible are the names of the people.
> > Nobody got turned into a pillar of salt, nobody restored a blind man's
> > sight, nobody lived 900 years.
>
> > I also reject the notion that these fairy tales have value if viewed as
> > gussied-up morality tales. It's nonsensical to say that right and wrong
> > wouldn't exist if not for "God".
>
> *How about their proportions? *Do you deny religion has an influence
> on many people?

Another "revelation".

God is truly speaking through 2pid. God always chooses such strange
messengers.

> > You know what's evil, Witless? Evil is using up the finite resources of our
> > planet in a rush to line our own pockets.
>
> *How much planetary resource does having money in your
> pocket consume? *I'd suggest that saving is a good thing.
> Spending and consuming unnecessarily is bad.
>
> But to compare...how much planetary resource is consumed to
> created an SL 500 vs a Chevy Malibu?

That's a really good point, 2pid, and totally shatters George's point.
A Toyota Prius only takes a few less resources than a Hummer, so it's
all good.

Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

> > The victims of this evil are the
> > other living things on earth.
>
> All living things are in competition.
> Should you die so other living things do not?

So we are competing with elephants and tigers and penguins and polar
bears, and if we don't make Hummers they will eat us.

OK, got it.

> > > I think of all these questions only one is known.
>
> > You don't 'think' in any sense recognizable to adult humans.
>
> *LoL. *That I don't think like you is always a relief to know.

Stupidity is not something to be proud of, 2pid, unless you know first-
hand that it's part of God's special plan for you.

Since you've been so against anonymity here, 2pid, I'd like to ask you
what your parent's names are. I have a feeling there's something bad
in your past and I'd like to look into it.

Thanks!

> > > > Another way of looking at this foolishness is to imagine a big brick wall
> > > > dividing your 'mind'.
>
> > > * The difference between you and me is obviously
> > > *that you have placed bricks in your brain.
>
> > As usual, it's down to the IKYABWAIs with you.
>
> > Couldn't you please get some smarts? Just a little bit? Pretty please?
>
> *I don't think it's smart to have such a narrow minded perspective.

LoL.

OK, 2pid: physical laws were broken by God on several occasions, or
they weren't and were lied about in the bible. Where to now?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 12:02*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:57*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
> > > > *So the answer is "Yes,
> > > > 2pid believes that seas can part,
>
> > > *So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
> > > physics?
> > > You obviously don't know much about physics.
>
> > >http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/20/7861/0033419...
>
> > I knew it!!!
> > Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.
>
> > > > locusts can be controlled by a
> > > > supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
> > > > stereo".
>
> > > > > Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
> > > > > "supernatural" to ancient man.
>
> > > > Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
> > > > gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
> > > > reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.
>
> > > *Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity..
> > > *Does that make it "supernatural"?
>
> > > > > *There you go again with your religious judgements.
> > > > > For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
> > > > > of preaching.
>
> > > > Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible.. I
> > > > have, cover to cover.
>
> > > *I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
> > > very important concepts.
>
> *What part of concept is confusing you?

What parts don't you believe?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
> Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?

That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.

(The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
to thank Him for.)

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 17:02, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
> > Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?
>
> That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.
>
> (The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
> some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
> to thank Him for.)

apply that to homosexuality.
God, am I lucky!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
> > > Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?
> >
> > That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.
> >
> > (The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
> > some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
> > to thank Him for.)
>
> apply that to homosexuality.
> God, am I lucky!

Equally applied to heterosexuality. Thank God!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > (The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
> > some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
> > to thank Him for.)

> God, am I lucky!

BTW, not too long ago, when I asked you to explain your opinion that
Scooter isn't super-stupid, you ran away. Maybe now that you've gotten off
your burst of homophobia, you can summon the courage to answer. Here it is
again:


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I've been mulling this post for a bit. At first I laughed out loud (that's
LOLed for you, Scottie), then I realized Sacky might not have been joking.
On reflection, I now believe he was f#(*ing serious.

> [Witless] is not stupid, but he often fails to think things through to
> their logical conclusions.

That's one of the primary characteristics of a stupid person.

> He has trouble
> visualizing the likely unintended consequences of his proposals.

That's another one.

> or, it could be he realizes them a little later but sloughs them off
> because he is already publicly boxed in by his proposal, and
> he feels he has to fight to defend it.

This doesn't necessarily invoke the specter of stupidity. Pigheadedness,
irrationality, hyperemotionalism -- yes, yes, and yes. But not always
stupidity. (However, refusing to give up a lost position is often the
result of stupidity.)


What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person? Mine includes the
inability to understand what others say. Scottie has that in spades.
Another attribute that's high on my list is the inability to see logical
contradictions. Also aced by Scottie. Your two attributes -- "not thinking
things through" and "trouble visualizing consequences" -- also occupy
prominent places.

So tell us, Clyde: How can somebody be stupid by your lights, yet not
exhibit those two characteristics you just tried to separate from
stupidity?



[reprinted with permission of the author]

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 27 Dec, 17:02, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > Shhhh! said:
> >
> > > Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
> > > Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?
> >
> > That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.
> >
> > (The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
> > some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
> > to thank Him for.)
>
> apply that to homosexuality.
> God, am I lucky!

Says you! ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 18:53, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > Will you ask God a question for me, 2pid? Will you ask him why, in His
> > > > Infinite Wisdom, he made dumb people?
>
> > > That would be a straight line if Scottie weren't, er, witless.
>
> > > (The answer that a normally witted person might supply is that "God" makes
> > > some of us dumb so that the rest of us realize we have something ineffable
> > > to thank Him for.)
>
> > apply that to homosexuality.
> > God, am I lucky!
>
> Equally applied to heterosexuality. Thank God!

you would be lucky, only if the
draft came back.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:


>
> What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?

One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Dec, 23:53, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

At the heart of it, there was a serious answer in there.
that is, anyone who thanks a make believe mythical
creature for causing anything to happen, or for
preventing anything form happening, is a stupid person.
But a more classic answer would be
1) one who does not learn
2) one who lacks common sense
3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
differences
between things, either real or conceptual.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
> >
> > > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
> >
> > It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.

[blah blah blah snipped]

> But a more classic answer would be
> 1) one who does not learn
> 2) one who lacks common sense
> 3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
> i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
> differences
> between things, either real or conceptual.

I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
admit that?

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > > > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> > > It was a serious question, you doltish Scottie-lover.
>
> [blah blah blah snipped]
>
> > But a more classic answer would be
> > 1) one who does not learn
> > 2) one who lacks common sense
> > 3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
> > i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
> > differences
> > between things, either real or conceptual.
>
> I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
> admit that?

I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
because
I have had many face to face conversations with him,
and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Your way of thinking goes.
" I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
stupid."

Hmmmm, you seem to have trouble with grasping relationships,
similarities and
differences between things, either real or conceptual., wait a
minute, that
just happens to be one of the three elements of stupidity!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 27, 11:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > Clyde Slick said:

> > > But a more classic answer would be
> > > 1) one who does not learn
> > > 2) one who lacks common sense
> > > 3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
> > > i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
> > > differences
> > > between things, either real or conceptual.
>
> > I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
> > admit that?
>
> I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
> because
> I have had many face to face conversations with him,
> and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

You claim that your face-to-face meetings with 2pid give you a leg up
on everybody else in determining 2pid's intelligence.

That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
imbecile here.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
> > admit that?
>
> I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
> because
> I have had many face to face conversations with him,
> and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.

Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured in
the bosom of Scottiedom.

> Your way of thinking goes.
> " I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
> I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
> stupid."

BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.

Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
because you don't understand how stupid he really is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 1:55*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
> > > admit that?
>
> > I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
> > because
> > I have had many face to face conversations with him,
> > and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.
>
> Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured in
> the bosom of Scottiedom.
>
> > Your way of thinking goes.
> > " I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
> > I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
> > stupid."
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.
>
> Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
> because you don't understand how stupid he really is.

Stupidity is, after all, just a "differing POV".

Clyde's an interesting study. Sometimes he says some smart stuff.
Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
whole homophobia thing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 01:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 11:27*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Dec, 00:15, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > > Clyde Slick said:
> > > > But a more classic answer would be
> > > > 1) one who does not learn
> > > > 2) one who lacks common sense
> > > > 3) one who has limited intellectual capability,
> > > > i.e., on who can't quite grasp relationships, similarities and
> > > > differences
> > > > between things, either real or conceptual.
>
> > > I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
> > > admit that?
>
> > I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
> > because
> > I have had many face to face conversations with him,
> > and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.
>
> You claim that your face-to-face meetings with 2pid give you a leg up
> on everybody else in determining 2pid's intelligence.
>
> That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
> imbecile here.-

I disagree with him, I disagree with you, I disagree with
George, neither of you three are stupid.
Arny is a different story, he
probably is not stupid, its just
that his insanity hinders wahtever intelligence he might have.

Even Bratzi isn't stupid, its just that his hatreds
control his mental functions.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 11:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:55*am, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why can't you
> > > > admit that?
>
> > > I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
> > > because
> > > I have had many face to face conversations with him,
> > > and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.
>
> > Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured in
> > the bosom of Scottiedom.
>
> > > Your way of thinking goes.
> > > " I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
> > > I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
> > > stupid."
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.
>
> > Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
> > because you don't understand how stupid he really is.
>
> Stupidity is, after all, just a "differing POV".
>
> Clyde's an interesting study. Sometimes he says some smart stuff.
> Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
> whole homophobia thing.-

i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that
their different sexual orientation is abnormal.
their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
different. But those relationships should be treated with respect and
afforded
the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 28 Dec, 11:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 1:55*am, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > > I agree with those. They all apply squarely to Scottie, too. Why
> > > > > can't you
> > > > > admit that?
> >
> > > > I disagree with you. Probably my difference of opinion with you is
> > > > because
> > > > I have had many face to face conversations with him,
> > > > and because I know him a whole lot better than you do.
> >
> > > Yes, I know. You have my deepest sympathy for the ordeals you've endured
> > > in
> > > the bosom of Scottiedom.
> >
> > > > Your way of thinking goes.
> > > > " I am right, he disagrees with me, he is wrong.
> > > > I am smart, so if he holds the contrasting viewpoint, he must be
> > > > stupid."
> >
> > > BWAHAHAHAHA! LOL, ROTFL, etc.
> >
> > > Now I have the answer to my question: You can't admit Scottie's a moron
> > > because you don't understand how stupid he really is.
> >
> > Stupidity is, after all, just a "differing POV".
> >
> > Clyde's an interesting study. Sometimes he says some smart stuff.
> > Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
> > whole homophobia thing.-
>
> i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that
> their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

So?

> their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
> different.

Why?

> But those relationships should be treated with respect and
> afforded
> the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.

When one has been homosexual for all of his/her life, when it feels just
as natural as heterosexuality feels to you, and when one can't imagine
being heterosexual just as you can't imagine being homosexual, why
wouldn't one be thankful for being homosexual? Forgetting the
discrimination thing, obviously.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 11:55, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> When one has been homosexual for all of his/her life, when it feels just
> as natural as heterosexuality feels to you, and when one can't imagine
> being heterosexual just as you can't imagine being homosexual, why
> wouldn't one be thankful for being homosexual? *Forgetting the
> discrimination thing, obviously.

the operative part of stupidity is
"thanking god" for anything.
in regard to homosexualty, it
presents difficulties I would
not be thankful for having to endure.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
> > whole homophobia thing.-
>
> i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that

The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
of Gay people.

You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to sexist or racist. Someday,
maybe your kind will be known as faggists.

> their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

Here we go again.

Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
for straight people.

> their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
> different.

I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
we need Witless to translate.

> But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
> the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
> > imbecile here.-
>
> I disagree with him, I disagree with you, I disagree with
> George, neither of you three are stupid.

For the record, Dumbo, I don't assess anybody's intelligence on the basis
of agreement or disagrement. That's a fantasy you concocted, I suspect in
order to avoid facing the truth about Witless the Retard.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
> > whole homophobia thing.-
>
> i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that

The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
of Gay people.

You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to it like sexist or racist
correspond to their respective bigotries. Someday, maybe your kind will be
known as faggists.

> their different sexual orientation is abnormal.

Here we go again.

Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
for straight people.

> their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
> different.

I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
we need Witless to translate.

> But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
> the same rights as respective hetero relationships.

You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
his little house in the back yard.

> an inability widen their circle of compassion

Scottie, what is a "circle of compassion"? And more to the point, you have
consistently barked viewpoints that are devoid of compassion. You're
against providing health care for the uninsured, you're against equal
rights for Gays, and you're against any accommodations for the underclass.

You bleating about compassion is as meaningful as Dumbya yapping about
particle physics.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 12:14*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:51*am, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
> > his little house in the back yard.
>
> > > an inability widen their circle of compassion
>
> > Scottie, what is a "circle of compassion"?
>
> *I would say it's things you might care about and seek
> to understand.

So your "circle of compassion" includes well-off straight white guys
who aren't Muslim. LoL.

> > And more to the point, you have
> > consistently barked viewpoints that are devoid of compassion.
>
> No consistently, no. *Have I on occasion lacked compassion.
> Of course.

If you define "on occasion" as "ever" you've just told the truth.

> In contrast, have you ever shown compassion?

Yes, he has. Far more than you ever have.

> > You're
> > against providing health care for the uninsured,
>
> Not true. I also reject your implication that a lack of insurance
> equals a lack of health care.

Of course not, 2pid. That's what emergency rooms are for.

> BTW...you should applaud Bush.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/health/policy/26clinics.html?bl&ex=....

I applaud bushie for creating several clinics where more people cannot
afford to get health care.

I applaud bushie for losing millions of jobs (and therefore millions
of insured) on his watch.

Here's a question for you, 2pid: under bush 1 and bushie 2, can you
tell me how many net jobs were created?

> > you're against equal
> > rights for Gays,
>
> Not true. *Though I reject your definition of a right
> and equal in this regard.

So you're *for* equal rights, except that it's not a right and
shouldn't be equal.

Got it.

> > and you're against any accommodations for the underclass.
>
> Any accomodations? *Not true. I support gov't backed student loans.

How compassionate of you. LoL.

> > You bleating about compassion is as meaningful as Dumbya yapping about
> > particle physics.
>
> *Here's the bottom line. *When you make these feeble attempts to
> define my
> position on anything, you're invariably wrong.

But 2pid, they're always based on things you've said. Always.

> You have no interest in my true beliefs, you only want a to craft a
> caricature you can ridicule for your amusement.

The caricature is created by...you...again. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:43, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
> > > whole homophobia thing.-
>
> > i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that
>
> The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
> happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
> brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
> of Gay people.
>
> You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
> kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to sexist or racist. Someday,
> maybe your kind will be known as faggists.
>

I am not bioted against gays. Gays should have full rights.
this includes the right to marry a person of the opposite sex
or enter into a civil union with the person of the same sex.
'Straights shoudl have the exact same rights to marraige with
the opposite sex and civil un ion with the same sex.
there should be no housing or employment discrimnation against gays.
Gays should have the same adoption rights as straights, considering
the best interests of the adopted child.
Your choice of
"faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.





> > their different sexual orientation is abnormal.
>
> Here we go again.
>
> Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
> for straight people.
>


and necrophilia is normal for necrophiliacs!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




> > their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
> > different.
>
> I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
> we need Witless to translate.


> > But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
> > the same rights as respective hetero relationships.
>
> You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
> emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.

I don't give lip service to faggots
LOL!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:43, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 9:22*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Dec, 11:55, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > > > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> > > When one has been homosexual for all of his/her life, when it feels just
> > > as natural as heterosexuality feels to you, and when one can't imagine
> > > being heterosexual just as you can't imagine being homosexual, why
> > > wouldn't one be thankful for being homosexual? *Forgetting the
> > > discrimination thing, obviously.
>
> > the operative part of stupidity is
> > "thanking god" for anything.
>
> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
>
> A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part
> limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and
> feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical
> delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
> restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
> persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the
> prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
> creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a
> human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they
> have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a
> substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
> (Albert Einstein, 1954)
>
> The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of
> the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this
> emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe,
> is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really
> exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant
> beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive
> forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
> religiousness.
> ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
>
> Here's a question for you. Some people struggle with relying on
> themselves, their own selfishness, an inability to guide their lives,
> resisting temptation, an inability widen their circle of compassion
> and embrace the whole of nature. So they turn to spirituality for
> help.
> Are they stupid for doing so?
> Why would you condemn them for thanking God when their lives
> and the lives of those they touch
> are better with a devotion to God than without?
>
> What do you accomplish in condemning them?
> Personally, I wonder where the greater stupidity lies.
>

Here's a question for you. Some people struggle with relying on
themselves, their own selfishness, an inability to guide their lives,
resisting temptation, an inability widen their circle of compassion
and embrace the whole of nature. So they turn to floobydust for
help.
Are they stupid for doing so?
Why would you condemn them for thanking mpingo disks when their lives
and the lives of those they touch
are better with a devotion to mpingo disks than without?


What do you accomplish in condemning them?
Personally, I wonder where the greater stupidity lies.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:44, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > That seems to be a tacit admission that you agree 2pid comes off as an
> > > imbecile here.-
>
> > I disagree with him, I disagree with you, I disagree with
> > George, neither of you three are stupid.
>
> For the record, Dumbo, I don't assess anybody's intelligence on the basis
> of agreement or disagrement. That's a fantasy you concocted, I suspect in
> order to avoid facing the truth about Witless the Retard.

what you think of Scott is your opinion.
I have a different one

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:46, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:06*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 13:02, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 9:57*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Dec, 11:58, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 5:50*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 2pid.
> > > > > > *So the answer is "Yes,
> > > > > > 2pid believes that seas can part,
>
> > > > > *So you think parting of water is outside the laws of
> > > > > physics?
> > > > > You obviously don't know much about physics.
>
> > > > >http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel1/20/7861/0033419...
>
> > > > I knew it!!!
> > > > Moses carried a giant magnet under his robe.
>
> > > > > > locusts can be controlled by a
> > > > > > supernatural being and Mpingo disks can radically alter the sound of a
> > > > > > stereo".
>
> > > > > > > Modern man and his inventions may well be considered
> > > > > > > "supernatural" to ancient man.
>
> > > > > > Ancient man didn't understand RLC. Lightning was the "anger of the
> > > > > > gods". Likewise earthquakes, as the study of plate techtonics wasn't a
> > > > > > reality. Epilepsy was demons controlling a body.
>
> > > > > *Yup. And modern man doesn't yet fully understand superconductivity.
> > > > > *Does that make it "supernatural"?
>
> > > > > > > *There you go again with your religious judgements.
> > > > > > > For someone who isn't religious you certainly do a lot
> > > > > > > of preaching.
>
> > > > > > Not being religious doesn't mean that someone hasn't read the bible. I
> > > > > > have, cover to cover.
>
> > > > > *I think you should read it again. You clearly missed out on some
> > > > > very important concepts.
>
> > > *What part of concept is confusing you?
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > well, we have already found a bunch of lies,
>
> That you find the bible of no use to you is fine.
> That you find the bible of no use to anyone is self centered.
>
> ScottW-


That you find Stereophile of no use to you is fine.
That you find Stgereophile of no use to anyone is self centered.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 12:50, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 12:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 13:03, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 9:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Dec, 12:06, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 26, 3:30*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 26 Dec, 18:05, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 26, 11:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 26 Dec, 14:24, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 26, 11:06*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 26 Dec, 13:54, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > So you 'know' the Red Sea was parted, or you disagree that is was a
> > > > > > > > > > > > remarkable engineering feat?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > *You can't even postulate all the possibilities.
>
> > > > > > > > > > here is where you can hlep us all out
> > > > > > > > > > by applying some science and reasonsing
> > > > > > > > > > to the published reports of *the parting of the Red Sea.
> > > > > > > > > > please explain
>
> > > > > > > > > *Why would you insist that the limited knowledge
> > > > > > > > > of man be sufficient to provide explanation?
>
> > > > > > > > apply that to the rest of your life-
>
> > > > > > > More demands.
> > > > > > > Go ahead if it suits you. I'll apply when
> > > > > > > appropriate and as I choose.
> > > > > > > It's called freedom.
>
> > > > > > freedom to be a hypocrite
>
> > > > > Freedom from the limits of those
> > > > > with a limited perspective.
>
> > > > > > science one minute, floobydust the next
> > > > > > its fine by me, as long as you acknowledge
> > > > > > your inconsistentcy, and don't demand science from others
>
> > > > > Some things are known. Some things are not known.
> > > > > The trick is to know the difference.
> > > > > Things referred to as "floobydust" are false
> > > > > claims. *How do we know they are false?
> > > > > They are about things that are known.
>
> > > > > ScottW-
>
> > > > There are things that you don't know that you don't know.
> > > > There are things that you think you know, but you you don't know
>
> > > *Does this imply that nothing is known? *I hope not.
>
> > History has shown man as" knowing" lots of things
> > that were later shown to be misunderstood
>
> *Go ahead and suspect all knowledge if you wish.
> *As I said, the trick is to know what is known.
> *Otherwise you'll be wasting time covering a lot of
> ground already well covered.
>
> ScottW-

tell that to Galileo

[Boon]

On Dec 28, 8:55�am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> �Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> When one has been homosexual for all of his/her life, when it feels just
> as natural as heterosexuality feels to you, and when one can't imagine
> being heterosexual just as you can't imagine being homosexual, why
> wouldn't one be thankful for being homosexual? �Forgetting the
> discrimination thing, obviously.

Psalm 139:16:

"You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before
I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!"

That means God planned for every homosexual to be a homosexual before
that individual was born. It's in the Bible. So why not thank God for
being a homosexual? According to the Bible, it's part of His plan for
someone to be a homosexual.

(BTW, this also means God planned the life and death of every aborted
baby in advance as well.)

Of course, this is just more proof of that religion is nonsense and a
bastion of hypocrisy.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clarity in a bottle, courtesy of Scottie Witlessmongrel.

> > And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
> > his little house in the back yard.
> >
> > > an inability widen their circle of compassion
> >
> > Scottie, what is a "circle of compassion"?
>
> I would say it's things you might care about and seek
> to understand.

Then why say "compassion"? It has no bearing on "things", only on living
creatures.

Now Sacky may argue that a stunted vocabulary isn't necessarily evidence of
stupidity, and I would agree. Psychologists have been able to diagnose
learning disabilities for many years. Those who have them are abnormal but
not necessarily stupid.

> > And more to the point, you have
> > consistently barked viewpoints that are devoid of compassion.
>
> No consistently, no.

Yes, very consistently. Let's hear you say something compassionate.

> In contrast, have you ever shown compassion?

You're a moron. I have none for you. I had a little for Turdborg when he
went on his big pity troll after he lost his son, but it evaporated
quickly.

Why are you unable to comprehend what I've said on RAO, Scooter? Is it
because you're stupid, or learning-disabled, or too angry to focus on what
others say and mean?

> > You're against providing health care for the uninsured,

> Not true.

Is so true. You've said so many times.

> I also reject your implication that a lack of insurance equals a lack of health care.

I didn't imply that, you pimple. I said you're against providing health
care for the uninsured, a statement for which there is plenty of supporting
evidence.

Once again, apparently, you've said the opposite of what you meant. You've
been propounding christian dogma for the past few months, but then claiming
you don't believe any of it. You've railed against all sorts of "them"
people whom you're afraid of, but now you say you don't believe any of what
you've said. Do you really wonder why you're always being "misunderstood"?
The reason for it should be obvious, even to a blockhead like you.

> > you're against equal
> > rights for Gays,

> Not true. Though I reject your definition of a right
> and equal in this regard.

Words fail me.

> > and you're against any accommodations for the underclass.

> Any accomodations? Not true. I support gov't backed student loans.

Oh, goody. One point for compassion against 50,000 points for selfishness.

> > You bleating about compassion is as meaningful as Dumbya yapping about
> > particle physics.

> Here's the bottom line. When you make these feeble attempts to
> define my
> position on anything, you're invariably wrong.

Whose fault is that, dimbulb? I base my "feeble attempts" on what you
actually say, just as the rest of us do. Do you still maintain it's a
coincidence that everybody other than you consistently "misunderstands"
your viewpoints? Here's some free advice: If you want us to understand
what you mean, then say what you mean. Unless that's impossible because of
your lack of mental horsepower. Are you going to plead stupidity? Just say
it once, and in the future, we'll nod sympathetically when you say
something and then whine about being "misunderstood".

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 13:43, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:39*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Dec, 12:43, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 9:22*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 Dec, 11:55, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> > > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > > > > > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> > > > > When one has been homosexual for all of his/her life, when it feels just
> > > > > as natural as heterosexuality feels to you, and when one can't imagine
> > > > > being heterosexual just as you can't imagine being homosexual, why
> > > > > wouldn't one be thankful for being homosexual? *Forgetting the
> > > > > discrimination thing, obviously.
>
> > > > the operative part of stupidity is
> > > > "thanking god" for anything.
>
> > >http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
>
> > > A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part
> > > limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and
> > > feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical
> > > delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
> > > restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
> > > persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the
> > > prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
> > > creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a
> > > human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they
> > > have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a
> > > substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
> > > (Albert Einstein, 1954)
>
> > > The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of
> > > the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this
> > > emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe,
> > > is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really
> > > exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant
> > > beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive
> > > forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
> > > religiousness.
> > > ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
>
> > > Here's a question for you. Some people struggle with relying on
> > > themselves, their own selfishness, an inability to guide their lives,
> > > resisting temptation, an inability widen their circle of compassion
> > > and embrace the whole of nature. So they turn to spirituality for
> > > help.
> > > Are they stupid for doing so?
> > > Why would you condemn them for thanking God when their lives
> > > and the lives of those they touch
> > > are better with a devotion to God than without?
>
> > > What do you accomplish in condemning them?
> > > Personally, I wonder where the greater stupidity lies.
>
> > Here's a question for you. Some people struggle with relying on
> > themselves, their own selfishness, an inability to guide their lives,
> > resisting temptation, an inability widen their circle of compassion
> > and embrace the whole of nature. So they turn to floobydust for
> > help.
>
> * Come on. *Floobydust is too vague a term to even
> provide meaningful discussion.
>
> > Are they stupid for doing so?
>
> Well, did it help?
>
> > Why would you condemn them for thanking mpingo disks when their lives
> > and the lives of those they touch
> > are better with a devotion to mpingo disks than without?
>
> If mpingo disks truly make their lives better, I won't condemn them
> for that. *Now if they try to insist they will make mine better
> and try to sell me some...I'm not going to be receptive.
>
>
>


and you would be the one to decideif it is "truly"?

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 14:13, Boon > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:55 am, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Dec, 18:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > What exactly is *your* definition of a stupid person?
>
> > > One who thanks god for being created as a homosexual.
>
> > When one has been homosexual for all of his/her life, when it feels just
> > as natural as heterosexuality feels to you, and when one can't imagine
> > being heterosexual just as you can't imagine being homosexual, why
> > wouldn't one be thankful for being homosexual? Forgetting the
> > discrimination thing, obviously.
>
> Psalm 139:16:
>
> "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before
> I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!"
>
> That means God planned for every homosexual to be a homosexual before
> that individual was born. It's in the Bible. *So why not thank God for
> being a homosexual? *According to the Bible, it's part of His plan for
> someone to be a homosexual.
>
> (BTW, this also means God planned the life and death of every aborted
> baby in advance as well.)
>
> Of course, this is just more proof of that religion is nonsense and a
> bastion of hypocrisy.
>


he also planned for the 19 Islamaists to do waht they
did on 9/11.
Not only that, he planned for Kruger to make
false KP allegations.
My only question is what day does he plan
for Krueger to step in fornt of the bus?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 12:47*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:29*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 12:14*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 9:51*am, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
> > > > his little house in the back yard.
>
> > > > > an inability widen their circle of compassion
>
> > > > Scottie, what is a "circle of compassion"?
>
> > > *I would say it's things you might care about and seek
> > > to understand.
>
> > So your "circle of compassion" includes well-off straight white guys
> > who aren't Muslim. LoL.
>
> * Once again you seem to think you're in a position to judge.

Yes, 2pid, I claim the right to judge the things you say.

> *That only reveals how foolish you are and what a shallow
> purpose you bring to usenet.

I see you ate Chinese again.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

http://www.christianscience.org/Einstein.htm

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> and necrophilia is normal for necrophiliacs!

I wonder why Rick Warren's church is called "Saddleback".

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 12:43*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> If mpingo disks truly make their lives better, I won't condemn them
> for that. *Now if they try to insist they will make mine better
> and try to sell me some...I'm not going to be receptive.

And the difference between this and, say, Christianity is...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 3:46*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > and necrophilia is normal for necrophiliacs!
>
> I wonder why Rick Warren's church is called "Saddleback".

God knew it would be called that before Warren was born.

[Boon]

On Dec 28, 6:04�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 12:43�pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > If mpingo disks truly make their lives better, I won't condemn them
> > for that. �Now if they try to insist they will make mine better
> > and try to sell me some...I'm not going to be receptive.
>
> And the difference between this and, say, Christianity is...

....Mpingo discs work.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

> > And the difference between this and, say, Christianity is...
>
> ...Mpingo discs work.

I wouldn't discount the placebo effect. In fact, that's what the priests
and imams are counting on.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 12:36*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 28 Dec, 12:43, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > Other times he drops stupid bombs like this. And then there's the
> > > > whole homophobia thing.-
>
> > > i have no fear of homosexuals, its just that
>
> > The term "homophobia" has expanded beyond its literal meaning. This
> > happened in the early '90s, shortly after it turned out that many of our
> > brave and powerful armed services personnel were well and truly TERRIFIED
> > of Gay people.
>
> > You are bigoted against Gays, but we don't have a ready-made term for your
> > kind of bigotry. Nothing corresponds directly to sexist or racist. Someday,
> > maybe your kind will be known as faggists.
>
> I am not bioted against gays. Gays should have full rights.
> this includes the right to marry a person of the opposite sex
> or enter into a civil union with the person of the same sex.

So straight people have a "right" to marry, but gays don't. and you're
not a bigot.

There's something very fishy about this 'logic'.

How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
can enter into civil unions with other blacks.

> 'Straights shoudl have the exact same rights to marraige with
> the opposite sex and civil un ion with the same sex.
> there should be no housing or employment discrimnation against gays.
> Gays should have the same adoption rights as straights, considering
> the best interests of the adopted child.
> Your choice of
> "faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.

It is, Clyde. So is "bigot".

> > > their different sexual orientation is abnormal.
>
> > Here we go again.
>
> > Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
> > for straight people.
>
> and necrophilia is normal for necrophiliacs!
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing very funny about ignorance when you're on the inside
looking out, Clyde.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

> > > their relationships needs to be treated differently because they
> > > different.
>
> > I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
> > we need Witless to translate.

It seems that 2pid gave this one a miss.

> > > But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
> > > the same rights as respective hetero relationships.
>
> > You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
> > emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.
>
> I don't give lip service to faggots
> LOL!!!!

Let me ask you, Clyde:

There are two components to a marriage. There is a religious component
and a civil law component.

Religions are free to recognize or to not recognize a marriage based
on their doctrine.

The civil government (with a few exceptions, like age of majority or
familial relationships) are not.

"Tradition" doesn't apply to civil law, or there would still be
slavery and Jim Crow laws. Further, as others have shown, "Tradition"
has frequently changed over time. Polygamy used to be the "tradition".
Only allowing people to marry within their own race was a "tradition".
So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid.

Presumptions of "The Natural Order" are likewise flawed. If we look in
nature, very few species pair for life. Most species screw whoever
wins the fight, or (at least in the case of some hominids) screw
several males so that the actual father is unknown so that the entire
group will defend the baby. Further, non-reproductive sex and
homosexuality is well-documented in species other than humans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid too.

Without using "religion", since they are free to discriminate based on
thier dogma, "The Natural Order", where lifelong pairings are the
exception rather than the rule (and non-reproductive sex and
homosexuality exist), and "tradition" which has been shown to be not
valid, describe logically how your opposition to gay marriage makes
sense and is not simply based on prejudice.

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

> So straight people have a "right" to marry, but gays don't. and you're
> not a bigot.
>
> There's something very fishy about this 'logic'.
>

No, anybody gay or straight, can marry a person of the opposite sex.
and anybody, gay or straight, can civilly unite with a person of the
same sex.
Each of those unions have the same sets of rights as the other union.
The only possible difference in rights that I can envision is
'in the case of divorce, in which, for civil unions, the equality
of rights for each of the two partners would be more equal aqnd
balanced than in
divorce for marraige, here the female partner has an advantage over
the male partner.






> How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>

Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers




> > 'Straights shoudl have the exact same rights to marraige with
> > the opposite sex and civil un ion with the same sex.
> > there should be no housing or employment discrimnation against gays.
> > Gays should have the same adoption rights as straights, considering
> > the best interests of the adopted child.
> > Your choice of
> > "faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.
>
> It is, Clyde. So is "bigot".

so, it is as wrong for you to call me a bigot
as it is worng for me to call you a faggot.





>
> > > > their different sexual orientation is abnormal.
>
> > > Here we go again.
>
> > > Our sexuality is not "abnormal" for Gay people, you simpering ****, only
> > > for straight people.
>
> > and necrophilia is normal for necrophiliacs!
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> There's nothing very funny about ignorance when you're on the inside
> looking out, Clyde.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
>

If you say so, I'll take your word for it. You would know
'that better than I would.
..
>
> > > I wonder what on earth that means. Treated by whom? In what context? Maybe
> > > we need Witless to translate.
>
> It seems that 2pid gave this one a miss.
>
> > > > But those relationships should be treated with respect and afforded
> > > > the same rights as respective hetero relationships.
>
> > > You know, this statement is very PC on your part, but it sounds like the
> > > emptiest of lip service in the context of your ongoing torrents of faggism.
>
> > I don't give lip service to faggots
> > LOL!!!!
>
> Let me ask you, Clyde:
>
> There are two components to a marriage. There is a religious component
> and a civil law component.
>


No there is not necessarily any religious component to marriage.
A great many marriages are not conducted in church, nor
directed by a memenr of clergy. Many married
people have no relgious interests.

> Religions are free to recognize or to not recognize a marriage based
> on their doctrine.
>
> The civil government (with a few exceptions, like age of majority or
> familial relationships) are not.
>
> "Tradition" doesn't apply to civil law, or there would still be
> slavery and Jim Crow laws. Further, as others have shown, "Tradition"
> has frequently changed over time. Polygamy used to be the "tradition".
> Only allowing people to marry within their own race was a "tradition".
> So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid.
>
> Presumptions of "The Natural Order" are likewise flawed. If we look in
> nature, very few species pair for life. Most species screw whoever
> wins the fight, or (at least in the case of some hominids) screw
> several males so that the actual father is unknown so that the entire
> group will defend the baby. Further, non-reproductive sex and
> homosexuality is well-documented in species other than humans:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animalshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal...
>
> So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid too.
>
> Without using "religion", since they are free to discriminate based on
> thier dogma, "The Natural Order", where lifelong pairings are the
> exception rather than the rule (and non-reproductive sex and
> homosexuality exist), and "tradition" which has been shown to be not
> valid, describe logically how your opposition to gay marriage makes
> sense and is not simply based on prejudice.-


we are not dogs.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > "faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.
> >
> > It is, Clyde. So is "bigot".
>
> so, it is as wrong for you to call me a bigot
> as it is worng for me to call you a faggot.

Translation: "Ooooh! My brain hurts!"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > Let me ask you, Clyde:
>
> > There are two components to a marriage. There is a religious component
> > and a civil law component.
>
> No there is not necessarily any religious component to marriage.

OK, good. As I said, we can discard that argument as it relates to
civil marriage.

> A great many marriages are not conducted in church, nor
> directed by a memenr of clergy. Many married
> people have no relgious interests.

So we agree that it's the civil law aspect that's the important one.

> > Religions are free to recognize or to not recognize a marriage based
> > on their doctrine.
>
> > The civil government (with a few exceptions, like age of majority or
> > familial relationships) are not.
>
> > "Tradition" doesn't apply to civil law, or there would still be
> > slavery and Jim Crow laws. Further, as others have shown, "Tradition"
> > has frequently changed over time. Polygamy used to be the "tradition".
> > Only allowing people to marry within their own race was a "tradition".
> > So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid.
>
> > Presumptions of "The Natural Order" are likewise flawed. If we look in
> > nature, very few species pair for life. Most species screw whoever
> > wins the fight, or (at least in the case of some hominids) screw
> > several males so that the actual father is unknown so that the entire
> > group will defend the baby. Further, non-reproductive sex and
> > homosexuality is well-documented in species other than humans:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animalshttp://news.nati.......
>
> > So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid too.
>
> > Without using "religion", since they are free to discriminate based on
> > thier dogma, "The Natural Order", where lifelong pairings are the
> > exception rather than the rule (and non-reproductive sex and
> > homosexuality exist), and "tradition" which has been shown to be not
> > valid, describe logically how your opposition to gay marriage makes
> > sense and is not simply based on prejudice.-
>
> we are not dogs.

Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
dogs.

I take it that once you remove "religion", "The Natural Order of
Things" and "tradition" from your arguments, we see that "prejudice"
and "bigotry" are all that is left. Behind door #2 is homophobia.
That's another option, of course.

Unless you'd like to try again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 10:25*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > "faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.
>
> > > It is, Clyde. So is "bigot".
>
> > so, it is as wrong for you to call me a bigot
> > as it is worng for me to call you a faggot.
>
> Translation: "Ooooh! My brain hurts!"

I can see why Clyde hangs out with 2pid.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> > can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>
> Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers

I asked you to explain the logic of your position. Since all that you
could come up with is "We are not dogs" we can assume that you are
incapable of producing any logic serving as the foundation of your
conclusion.

That is the definition of "stupid".

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 00:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > Let me ask you, Clyde:
>
> > > There are two components to a marriage. There is a religious component
> > > and a civil law component.
>
> > No there is not necessarily any religious component to marriage.
>
> OK, good. As I said, we can discard that argument as it relates to
> civil marriage.
>
> > A great many marriages are not conducted in church, nor
> > directed by a memenr of clergy. Many married
> > people have no relgious interests.
>
> So we agree that it's the civil law aspect that's the important one.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Religions are free to recognize or to not recognize a marriage based
> > > on their doctrine.
>
> > > The civil government (with a few exceptions, like age of majority or
> > > familial relationships) are not.
>
> > > "Tradition" doesn't apply to civil law, or there would still be
> > > slavery and Jim Crow laws. Further, as others have shown, "Tradition"
> > > has frequently changed over time. Polygamy used to be the "tradition"..
> > > Only allowing people to marry within their own race was a "tradition"..
> > > So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid.
>
> > > Presumptions of "The Natural Order" are likewise flawed. If we look in
> > > nature, very few species pair for life. Most species screw whoever
> > > wins the fight, or (at least in the case of some hominids) screw
> > > several males so that the actual father is unknown so that the entire
> > > group will defend the baby. Further, non-reproductive sex and
> > > homosexuality is well-documented in species other than humans:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animalshttp://news.nati.......
>
> > > So let's throw that one out as weak and not valid too.
>
> > > Without using "religion", since they are free to discriminate based on
> > > thier dogma, "The Natural Order", where lifelong pairings are the
> > > exception rather than the rule (and non-reproductive sex and
> > > homosexuality exist), and "tradition" which has been shown to be not
> > > valid, describe logically how your opposition to gay marriage makes
> > > sense and is not simply based on prejudice.-
>
> > we are not dogs.
>
> Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> dogs.
>
yes, we are humans, not other animals

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 00:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> > > can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>
> > Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers
>
> I asked you to explain the logic of your position. Since all that you
> could come up with is "We are not dogs" we can assume that you are
> incapable of producing any logic serving as the foundation of your
> conclusion.
>
> That is the definition of "stupid".

you are the one that brought up other animals
we are not other animals.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 11:25*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 00:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > we are not dogs.
>
> > Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> > dogs.
>
> yes, we are humans, not other animals

So the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is a moot 'point' to
you.

We, as humans, should be able to overcome these "natural urges" and
"do the right thing".

Is that about it?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 28, 11:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 00:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> > > > can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>
> > > Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers
>
> > I asked you to explain the logic of your position. Since all that you
> > could come up with is "We are not dogs" we can assume that you are
> > incapable of producing any logic serving as the foundation of your
> > conclusion.
>
> > That is the definition of "stupid".
>
> you are the one that brought up other animals
> we are not other animals.

Duh.

So, we've eliminated "The Natural Order" as a 'reason' to not allow
gay marriage. We've eliminated "tradition" and "religion" as well.

So your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > we are not dogs.
>
> Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> dogs.
>
> I take it that once you remove "religion", "The Natural Order of
> Things" and "tradition" from your arguments, we see that "prejudice"
> and "bigotry" are all that is left. Behind door #2 is homophobia.
> That's another option, of course.
>
> Unless you'd like to try again.

I doubt he wants to try again. You exhausted his limited brainpower by
making him read all those paragraphs in your earlier post.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > > "faggist' is curious, as I thought that faggot is a bad word.
> >
> > > > It is, Clyde. So is "bigot".
> >
> > > so, it is as wrong for you to call me a bigot
> > > as it is worng for me to call you a faggot.
> >
> > Translation: "Ooooh! My brain hurts!"
>
> I can see why Clyde hangs out with 2pid.

As Forrest's mama used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> So, we've eliminated "The Natural Order" as a 'reason' to not allow
> gay marriage. We've eliminated "tradition" and "religion" as well.

Did Sacky agree that his hatred is not rooted in tradition? Seems to me
that he's been chanting "a man and a woman" rather consistently.

> So your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...

When Huckabee went on Jon Stewart's show, he performed the same act. He
just repeated "a man and a woman" at every opportunity.

If this is something other than a slavish adoration of tradition, I'd like
to know what it is. Too bad Sacky isn't up to the task of putting his
hatred into words.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 01:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:25*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 00:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > we are not dogs.
>
> > > Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> > > dogs.
>
> > yes, we are humans, not other animals
>
> So the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is a moot 'point' to
> you.
>
> We, as humans, should be able to overcome these "natural urges" and
> "do the right thing".
>
> Is that about it?

some animals eat their young.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 01:12, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec, 00:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> > > > > can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>
> > > > Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers
>
> > > I asked you to explain the logic of your position. Since all that you
> > > could come up with is "We are not dogs" we can assume that you are
> > > incapable of producing any logic serving as the foundation of your
> > > conclusion.
>
> > > That is the definition of "stupid".
>
> > you are the one that brought up other animals
> > we are not other animals.
>
> Duh.
>
> So, we've eliminated "The Natural Order" as a 'reason' to not allow
> gay marriage. We've eliminated "tradition" and "religion" as well.
>
> So your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...-

Don't include 'me' in your "we".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 12:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 01:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 11:25*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 00:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > we are not dogs.
>
> > > > Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> > > > dogs.
>
> > > yes, we are humans, not other animals
>
> > So the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is a moot 'point' to
> > you.
>
> > We, as humans, should be able to overcome these "natural urges" and
> > "do the right thing".
>
> > Is that about it?
>
> some animals eat their young.

Some humans do too.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 12:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 01:12, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 11:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 00:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> > > > > > can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>
> > > > > Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers
>
> > > > I asked you to explain the logic of your position. Since all that you
> > > > could come up with is "We are not dogs" we can assume that you are
> > > > incapable of producing any logic serving as the foundation of your
> > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > That is the definition of "stupid".
>
> > > you are the one that brought up other animals
> > > we are not other animals.
>
> > Duh.
>
> > So, we've eliminated "The Natural Order" as a 'reason' to not allow
> > gay marriage. We've eliminated "tradition" and "religion" as well.
>
> > So your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...-
>
> Don't include 'me' in your "we".

So your opposition to gay marriage *is* based on "tradition", "The
Natural Order" or "religion".

Since all three have been proven to be rather ridiculous and untenable
positions, we can conclude that you base your opposition on a
ridiculous untenable position.

I'll guess you either base your opposition on "tradition" or "The
Natural Order". I'll wager that you're one of those saps who inside
considers homosexuality "unnatural" and your opposition
"scientifically-based". As we've seen, homosexuality occurs across the
spectrum of species on Earth and not as a result of environment.
Therefore, one can safely conclude, it is a "natural" (probably
genetic) occurance, even considering your stupid "we are not dogs" and
"some animals eat their young" 'points'.

Unless you confess to homophobia. We haven't eliminated that one yet.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 12:35*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > So, we've eliminated "The Natural Order" as a 'reason' to not allow
> > gay marriage. We've eliminated "tradition" and "religion" as well.
>
> Did Sacky agree that his hatred is not rooted in tradition? Seems to me
> that he's been chanting "a man and a woman" rather consistently.

My bet is poor Clyde 'thinks' his opposition is based on science.

I think Bratzi bases his hatreds on "science" too.

> > So your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...
>
> When Huckabee went on Jon Stewart's show, he performed the same act. He
> just repeated "a man and a woman" at every opportunity.

Thank god he didn't become President. Can you imagine?

And I wonder why he didn't win since it's clear that God told him to
run.

> If this is something other than a slavish adoration of tradition, I'd like
> to know what it is. Too bad Sacky isn't up to the task of putting his
> hatred into words.

"It was Adam and *Eve*, not Adam and *Steve*!"

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 02:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 12:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec, 01:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 28, 11:25*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 29 Dec, 00:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > we are not dogs.
>
> > > > > Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> > > > > dogs.
>
> > > > yes, we are humans, not other animals
>
> > > So the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is a moot 'point' to
> > > you.
>
> > > We, as humans, should be able to overcome these "natural urges" and
> > > "do the right thing".
>
> > > Is that about it?
>
> > some animals eat their young.
>
> Some humans do too.-


so let's issue a license.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 03:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 12:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec, 01:12, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 28, 11:26*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 29 Dec, 00:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 28 Dec, 22:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > > How about this: whites have a "right" to marry other whites. Blacks
> > > > > > > can enter into civil unions with other blacks.
>
> > > > > > Nope, it is about the genders of the partnership memebers
>
> > > > > I asked you to explain the logic of your position. Since all that you
> > > > > could come up with is "We are not dogs" we can assume that you are
> > > > > incapable of producing any logic serving as the foundation of your
> > > > > conclusion.
>
> > > > > That is the definition of "stupid".
>
> > > > you are the one that brought up other animals
> > > > we are not other animals.
>
> > > Duh.
>
> > > So, we've eliminated "The Natural Order" as a 'reason' to not allow
> > > gay marriage. We've eliminated "tradition" and "religion" as well.
>
> > > So your reasons for being opposed to gay marriage are...-
>
> > Don't include 'me' in your "we".
>
> So your opposition to gay marriage *is* based on "tradition", "The
> Natural Order" or "religion".
>
> Since all three have been proven to be rather ridiculous and untenable
> positions, we can conclude that you base your opposition on a
> ridiculous untenable position.
>
> I'll guess you either base your opposition on "tradition" or "The
> Natural Order". I'll wager that you're one of those saps who inside
> considers homosexuality "unnatural" and your opposition
> "scientifically-based". As we've seen, homosexuality occurs across the
> spectrum of species on Earth and not as a result of environment.
> Therefore, one can safely conclude, it is a "natural" (probably
> genetic) occurance, even considering your stupid "we are not dogs" and
> "some animals eat their young" 'points'.
>
> Unless you confess to homophobia. We haven't eliminated that one yet.
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!-

Other species don't get 'married'

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 02:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 12:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 01:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 28, 11:25*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 29 Dec, 00:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 28, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > we are not dogs.
>
> > > > > > Is that the best "logic" you can come up with? Nobody said we were
> > > > > > dogs.
>
> > > > > yes, we are humans, not other animals
>
> > > > So the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is a moot 'point' to
> > > > you.
>
> > > > We, as humans, should be able to overcome these "natural urges" and
> > > > "do the right thing".
>
> > > > Is that about it?
>
> > > some animals eat their young.
>
> > Some humans do too.-
>
> so let's issue a license.

Are you (stupidly) suggesting that homosexuality is somehow related,
or equivalent to, the cannabalism of infants?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 03:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > Unless you confess to homophobia. We haven't eliminated that one yet.
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!-
>
> Other species don't get 'married'

So you're also opposed to marriage for heterosexuals.

Now *there's* an interesting twist!

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 08:38, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:59*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 03:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > Unless you confess to homophobia. We haven't eliminated that one yet.
> > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!-
>
> > Other species don't get 'married'
>
> So you're also opposed to marriage for heterosexuals.
>
> Now *there's* an interesting twist!

no, the sexual activities of other animals
are irrelevant in regard to marriage for humans.
Sexual activity is one thing, marriage is another thing.

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 11:56, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:39*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:

>
> > > If mpingo disks truly make their lives better, I won't condemn them
> > > for that. *Now if they try to insist they will make mine better
> > > and try to sell me some...I'm not going to be receptive.
>
> > and you would be the one to decideif it is "truly"?
>
> *Whether you care to admit it or not, we all make judgements on
> all things, always.
>
> ScottW-

fine, we all do, but them the judgement is
merely your opinion, not 'truly'

[Clyde Slick]

On 29 Dec, 13:38, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:32*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Dec, 11:56, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 11:39*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > If mpingo disks truly make their lives better, I won't condemn them
> > > > > for that. *Now if they try to insist they will make mine better
> > > > > and try to sell me some...I'm not going to be receptive.
>
> > > > and you would be the one to decideif it is "truly"?
>
> > > *Whether you care to admit it or not, we all make judgements on
> > > all things, always.
>
> > > ScottW-
>
> > fine, we all do, but them the judgement is
> > merely your opinion, not 'truly'
>
> *I see you insist on a DBT as evidence.
> *Ok.
>
> ScottW-

that's you, not me
I don't insist on any evidence
all i ask is that you call an opinion for waht it is, an opinion.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clarity in a bottle, courtesy of Scottie Witlessmongrel.

> > And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
> > his little house in the back yard.
> >
> > > an inability widen their circle of compassion
> >
> > Scottie, what is a "circle of compassion"?
>
> I would say it's things you might care about and seek
> to understand.

Then why say "compassion"? It has no bearing on "things", only on living
creatures.

Now Sacky may argue that a stunted vocabulary isn't necessarily evidence of
stupidity, and I would agree. Psychologists have been able to diagnose
learning disabilities for many years. Those who have them are abnormal but
not necessarily stupid.

> > And more to the point, you have
> > consistently barked viewpoints that are devoid of compassion.
>
> No consistently, no.

Yes, very consistently. Let's hear you say something compassionate.

> In contrast, have you ever shown compassion?

You're a moron. I have none for you. I had a little for Turdborg when he
went on his big pity troll after he lost his son, but it evaporated quickly.

Why are you unable to comprehend what I've said on RAO, Scooter? Is it
because you're stupid, or learning-disabled, or too angry to focus on what
others say and mean?

> > You're against providing health care for the uninsured,

> Not true.

Is so true. You've said so many times.

> I also reject your implication that a lack of insurance equals a lack of health care.

I didn't imply that, you pimple. I said you're against providing health care
for the uninsured, a statement for which there is plenty of supporting
evidence.

Once again, apparently, you've said the opposite of what you meant. You've
been propounding christian dogma for the past few months, but then claiming
you don't believe any of it. You've railed against all sorts of "them"
people whom you're afraid of, but now you say you don't believe any of what
you've said. Do you really wonder why you're always being "misunderstood"?
The reason for it should be obvious, even to a blockhead like you.

> > you're against equal
> > rights for Gays,

> Not true. Though I reject your definition of a right
> and equal in this regard.

Words fail me.

> > and you're against any accommodations for the underclass.

> Any accomodations? Not true. I support gov't backed student loans.

Oh, goody. One point for compassion against 50,000 points for selfishness.

> > You bleating about compassion is as meaningful as Dumbya yapping about
> > particle physics.

> Here's the bottom line. When you make these feeble attempts to
> define my
> position on anything, you're invariably wrong.

Whose fault is that, dimbulb? I base my "feeble attempts" on what you
actually say, just as the rest of us do. Do you still maintain it's a
coincidence that everybody other than you consistently "misunderstands" your
viewpoints? Here's some free advice: If you want us to understand what you
mean, then say what you mean. Unless that's impossible because of your lack
of mental horsepower. Are you going to plead stupidity? Just say it once,
and in the future, we'll nod sympathetically when you say something and then
whine about being "misunderstood".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 5, 6:15*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clarity in a bottle, courtesy of Scottie Witlessmongrel.
>
> > > And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
> > > his little house in the back yard.

> > > you're against equal
> > > rights for Gays,
> > Not true. *Though I reject your definition of a right
> > and equal in this regard.
>
> Words fail me.

Is this like GOIA saying that he can "back out of any agreement he
wants to" yet also saying that does not mean his word is "worthless?
LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > > And now the Stoopid Reverend Yappity-Yap-Yap will yap today's sermon from
> > > > his little house in the back yard.
>
> > > > you're against equal
> > > > rights for Gays,

> > > Not true. *Though I reject your definition of a right
> > > and equal in this regard.

> > Words fail me.

> Is this like GOIA saying that he can "back out of any agreement he
> wants to" yet also saying that does not mean his word is "worthless?

We know Arnii wants to be a martyr. Does Scottie want to be sent to his
doghouse?