IT'S NOW OFFICIAL

[Robert Morein]

George Middius and I have successfully stifled all discussion about audio in
rec.audio.opinion.

While there were a few hardnosed holdouts, it's clear now that all audio
discussions here ARE OVER.

We now move to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tubes, and aus.hi-fi to perform the
same magic there!

Luv
Robert Morein
Shop 'N Bag, PA

[sick of you]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
> George Middius and I have successfully stifled all discussion about audio
in
> rec.audio.opinion.
>
> While there were a few hardnosed holdouts, it's clear now that all audio
> discussions here ARE OVER.
>
> We now move to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tubes, and aus.hi-fi to perform
the
> same magic there!
>
> Luv
> Robert Morein
> Shop 'N Bag, PA
>
Robert went to a urologist named George and told him that he was having a
problem, in that, he was unable to get his penis erect. After a complete
exam George told Robert that the muscles around the base of his penis were
damaged from a prior viral infection and there was nothing he could do for
him. However, he knew of an experimental treatment that might be applicable,
if
he were willing to take the risk.

The treatment consisted of implanting muscle tissue from an elephant's
trunk in Robert's penis. Robert thought about it for a while. The thought
of > going through life without ever experiencing sex again was just too
much for him to bear. So, with the assurance that there would be no cruelty
or adverse effect on the elephant, Robert decided to go for it.

A few weeks after the operation, Robert was given the green light to use his
newly renovated equipment. As a result, he planned a romantic evening with
his girlfriend Fred and took him to one of the nicest restaurants in the
city. However, in the middle of dinner he felt a stirring between his legs
that continued to the point of being extremely painful. To release the
pressure, Robert unzipped his fly andimmediately his penis sprung from his
pants, went to the top of the table, grabbed a roll, then returned to his
pants.

Fred was stunned at first, but then with a sly smile on his face said:
"Robert, that was incredible. Can you do that again?"

Robert, with his eyes watering, replied: "I think I can, but I'm not sure
that I can fit another roll up my ass."

[paul packer]

Robert Morein wrote:
> George Middius and I have successfully stifled all discussion about audio in
> rec.audio.opinion.
>
> While there were a few hardnosed holdouts, it's clear now that all audio
> discussions here ARE OVER.
>
> We now move to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tubes, and aus.hi-fi to perform the
> same magic there!
>
> Luv
> Robert Morein
> Shop 'N Bag, PA


Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.
Good luck.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.

Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down the
law on Lyin' Bwian.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.
>
> Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down the
> law on Lyin' Bwian.

**He's small potatoes. Our lying scumbag of a Prime Minister has to be
brought down first. Trouble is, unlike your idiot of a President, our PM is
smart. He's still a liar though. Must be a Christian thing.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > paul packer said:
> >
> >> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.
> >
> > Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down the
> > law on Lyin' Bwian.
>
> **He's small potatoes. Our lying scumbag of a Prime Minister has to be
> brought down first. Trouble is, unlike your idiot of a President, our PM is
> smart. He's still a liar though. Must be a Christian thing.

Unnecessary slap at Christianity No. 436 by Trevor Wilson, whose grasp
of electronics is sadly not matched by his grasp of metaphysics and the
ethereal in general.

In short, give us a break, Trev. :-)

[roughplanet]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote
in message ...

paul packer said:

>>> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.

>> Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down
>> the
>> law on Lyin' Bwian.

> **He's small potatoes. Our lying scumbag of a Prime Minister has to be
> brought down first. Trouble is, unlike your idiot of a President, our PM
> is smart. He's still a liar though. Must be a Christian thing.

More specifically, a Church of England one. You don't have to look further
than our disgraced Governor General for proof of that.
Being a Christian is bad enough, God only knows, but being Church of England
brands you both a liar & a hypocrite, but not necessarily in that order.

ruff

[roughplanet]

"roughplanet" > wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...

paul packer said:

>>>> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.

>>> Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down
>>> the law on Lyin' Bwian.

>> **He's small potatoes. Our lying scumbag of a Prime Minister has to be
>> brought down first. Trouble is, unlike your idiot of a President, our PM
>> is smart. He's still a liar though. Must be a Christian thing.

> More specifically, a Church of England one. You don't have to look further
> than our disgraced Governor General for proof of that.
> Being a Christian is bad enough, God only knows, but being Church of
> England brands you both a liar & a hypocrite, but not necessarily in that
> order.

Geez, I would have bet pounds to peanuts I would have gotten you with that
one Paul (sigh). I guess I'll just have to lift my game a few notches, eh
:-)?

ruff

[roughplanet]

"roughplanet" > wrote in message
u...

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
.. .

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote in message ...

paul packer said:

>>>> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.

>>> Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down
>>> the law on Lyin' Bwian.

>> **He's small potatoes. Our lying scumbag of a Prime Minister has to be
>> brought down first. Trouble is, unlike your idiot of a President, our PM
>> is smart. He's still a liar though. Must be a Christian thing.

> More specifically, a Church of England one. You don't have to look further
> than our disgraced Governor General for proof of that.
> Being a Christian is bad enough, God only knows, but being Church of
> England brands you both a liar & a hypocrite, but not necessarily in that
> order.

Struth! What did I say that caused Optus to ban my last post??? Anyway, here
it is again. Let's see if I mention the magic word/sentence/whatever this
time.....

> Geez, I would have bet pounds to peanuts I would have gotten you with that
> one Paul (sigh). I guess I'll just have to lift my game a few notches, eh
> :-)?
>
> ruff

ruff ruff (heh heh)

[paul packer]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:02:59 +1000, "roughplanet"
> wrote:


>> More specifically, a Church of England one. You don't have to look further
>> than our disgraced Governor General for proof of that.
>> Being a Christian is bad enough, God only knows, but being Church of
>> England brands you both a liar & a hypocrite, but not necessarily in that
>> order.
>
>Struth! What did I say that caused Optus to ban my last post??? Anyway, here
>it is again. Let's see if I mention the magic word/sentence/whatever this
>time.....
>
>> Geez, I would have bet pounds to peanuts I would have gotten you with that
>> one Paul (sigh). I guess I'll just have to lift my game a few notches, eh
>> :-)?
>>
>> ruff
>
>ruff ruff (heh heh)


You probably would have, Ruff, except my server hasn't downloaded any
NG messages for the last three days, and I hate using Google groups.
Better luck next time. :-)

[Ayn Marx]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
> A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

Why bother when scripture tends to indicate the 'Almighty' is himself a
sado-masochist?

[roughplanet]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
ps.com...

George M. Middius wrote:

>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and
>> supportive as is >> possible." A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

> Why bother when scripture tends to indicate the 'Almighty' is himself a
> sado-masochist?

Himself? I think of the Almighty as a H-U-G-E Madam Lash.

ruff

[[email protected]]

On 2006-08-19 said:
>>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just,
>>>and supportive as is >> possible." A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
WHy don't you people take this horse**** elsewhere other
than rec.audio.pro please?
Anybody with half a clue thinks all you brainless ****wits
should suck on a shotgun.
I'd be more than glad to pull the trigger for ya.

[George M. Middius]

farty-pants bitched:

> horse****
> all you brainless ****wits

You should change your name to "grumpyoldphart".





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> On 2006-08-19 said:
> >>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just,
> >>>and supportive as is >> possible." A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
> WHy don't you people take this horse**** elsewhere other
> than rec.audio.pro please?
> Anybody with half a clue thinks all you brainless ****wits
> should suck on a shotgun.
> I'd be more than glad to pull the trigger for ya.
>
I'd be more than happy to light one of your "pharts."

[roughplanet]

> wrote in message
. ..

On 2006-08-19 said:

> >>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just,
> >>>and supportive as is >> possible." A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

> WHy don't you people take this horse**** elsewhere other than
> rec.audio.pro
> please?
> Anybody with half a clue thinks all you brainless ****wits
> should suck on a shotgun.
> I'd be more than glad to pull the trigger for ya.

Because it's time you brainless f**kwits at rec.audio.pro & anywhere else
for that matter got a little bit of your own s**t back again. We, at
aus.hi-fi have been innundated with this mindless drivel for months now, and
I for one intend to give every damn bit as good as I get.
Capice?

ruff

[paul packer]

On 18 Aug 2006 18:09:51 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
>> A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
>
>Why bother when scripture tends to indicate the 'Almighty' is himself a
>sado-masochist?


Interesting POV, Ayn. Care to quote some scripture in support?

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
> >Why bother when scripture tends to indicate the 'Almighty' is himself a
> >sado-masochist?
>
>
> Interesting POV, Ayn. Care to quote some scripture in support?

And I will give over the Egyptians
into the land of a hard master;
and a fierce king will rule over them,
says the Lord, The Lord of hosts.

Isaiah 19:4

Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
cruel with wrath and fierce anger,
to make the earth a desolation
and to destroy its sinners from it.

Isaiah 13:9

..and as did Mark at 6:6-7 there appears to be a distinctionmade in
Biblical thought between the inward and the outward ( I'm not here
attempting to draw a distinction between the physical and the non
physical) ........
Behold the Lord will lay waste
the earth and make it desolate,
and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants.

Isaiah 24:1

One could also dwell upon the implications of Almighty's Omnipotence &
omniscience in the context of the Crucifixion . What are we to make of
a deity who knowingly tortures his own son, & being part of the
Trinity, himself? Not to worry, theologians have multitudinous
strategies for wriggling out of that one.

[paul packer]

On 19 Aug 2006 00:17:06 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> >Why bother when scripture tends to indicate the 'Almighty' is himself a
>> >sado-masochist?
>>
>>
>> Interesting POV, Ayn. Care to quote some scripture in support?
>
>And I will give over the Egyptians
>into the land of a hard master;
>and a fierce king will rule over them,
>says the Lord, The Lord of hosts.
>
>Isaiah 19:4
>
>Behold, the day of the Lord comes,
>cruel with wrath and fierce anger,
>to make the earth a desolation
>and to destroy its sinners from it.
>
>Isaiah 13:9
>
>.and as did Mark at 6:6-7 there appears to be a distinctionmade in
>Biblical thought between the inward and the outward ( I'm not here
>attempting to draw a distinction between the physical and the non
>physical) ........
>Behold the Lord will lay waste
>the earth and make it desolate,
>and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants.
>
>Isaiah 24:1

>One could also dwell upon the implications of Almighty's Omnipotence &
>omniscience in the context of the Crucifixion . What are we to make of
>a deity who knowingly tortures his own son, & being part of the
>Trinity, himself?

God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son. The rejection and
torture arises out of the simple fact that the world cannot abide true
holiness, a fact proved by the fate met by most saints and sometimes
just good people. In any case the concept of a king having to perish
for the regeneration of the people (or crops perhaps) is as old as
history, and contains a mystery which it would be impractical to
elucidate here. In any case it should be clear to any intelligent
person that stuff like that is not to be understood with the
intellect, which is only capable of speculation based on experience
and observation of the external world. You may as well try to
apprehend by mere thinking passages in the Indian Upanishads like,
"How can the Knower be known?" which is somewhat tantamount to asking
how an eye can see itself.

I hate to keep quoting Charlie Chaplin, but it always seems so
appropriate in these discussions:

"We think too much and feel too little."

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son.
> the world cannot abide true holiness

"I am not religious." -- paul packer, June 2006




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
>
> "We think too much and feel too little?"
No, you feel too much and think too little.

[[email protected]]

On 2006-08-19 said:
>> Anybody with half a clue thinks all you brainless ****wits
>> should suck on a shotgun.
>> I'd be more than glad to pull the trigger for ya.
>Because it's time you brainless f**kwits at rec.audio.pro &
>anywhere else for that matter got a little bit of your own s**t
>back again. We, at aus.hi-fi have been innundated with this
>mindless drivel for months now, and I for one intend to give every
>damn bit as good as I get. Capice?
Look to rec.audio.opinion for this drivel. THat's where it
originates, and that's where this horse**** should stay.
But these folks being the wastes of perfectly good food
water and oxygen that they are pollute anywhere on usenet
they can with it.
HEy but then you guys have PHil Allison in proximity to you.
Glad we don't here.

Many of us who read and post to rec.audio.pro are interested
in the craft and art of audio production. These idiots want
to engage in ascii ****ing contests that neverend, and they
crosspost their drivel to other audio related groups because
they wish to be the center of attention. THe best policy is
to criticize sharply any one of your regulars who crossposts
to rec.audio.opinion, and shun that individual. SOunds like
many of you just as many of us don't want their ilk around.

HEy there we go, we could all take up a collection to get
them together for a convention and then experiment with
nerve gases etc.

Have fun!!!

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> farty-pants bitched:
>
>> horse****
>> all you brainless ****wits
>
> You should change your name to "grumpyoldphart".
>

I think he's a ****less brainwit.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> On 2006-08-19 said:
>> >>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just,
>> >>>and supportive as is >> possible." A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
>> WHy don't you people take this horse**** elsewhere other
>> than rec.audio.pro please?
>> Anybody with half a clue thinks all you brainless ****wits
>> should suck on a shotgun.
>> I'd be more than glad to pull the trigger for ya.
>>
> I'd be more than happy to light one of your "pharts."
>



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> On 2006-08-19 said:
>> >>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just,
>> >>>and supportive as is >> possible." A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
>> WHy don't you people take this horse**** elsewhere other
>> than rec.audio.pro please?
>> Anybody with half a clue thinks all you brainless ****wits
>> should suck on a shotgun.
>> I'd be more than glad to pull the trigger for ya.
>>
> I'd be more than happy to light one of your "pharts."
>

So, that's how your hair got so frizzy.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[paul packer]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:15:37 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son.
>> the world cannot abide true holiness
>
>"I am not religious." -- paul packer, June 2006

No contradiction there, George. The problem is your conception of the
word "religious".

[paul packer]

On 19 Aug 2006 05:29:31 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>>
>> "We think too much and feel too little?"
>No, you feel too much and think too little.

So you believe the part of my post you snipped is the result of my
thinking too little, is that it?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son.
> >> the world cannot abide true holiness

> >"I am not religious." -- paul packer, June 2006

> No contradiction there, George. The problem is your conception of the
> word "religious".

Prattling about "God" and "His Son" and "holiness" -- not religious?
Speaking parabolically, even cryptically -- not religious? You're the one
who's lost the thread, paul.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2006 05:29:31 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >paul packer wrote:
> >>
> >> "We think too much and feel too little?"
> >No, you feel too much and think too little.
>
> So you believe the part of my post you snipped is the result of my
> thinking too little, is that it?

Whatever you feel petal.

[paul packer]

On 19 Aug 2006 20:46:21 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2006 05:29:31 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >paul packer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "We think too much and feel too little?"
>> >No, you feel too much and think too little.
>>
>> So you believe the part of my post you snipped is the result of my
>> thinking too little, is that it?
>
>Whatever you feel petal.


Can't answer a straight question, Ayn? That's not like you.

[Alan Rutlidge]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 Aug 2006 20:46:21 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>paul packer wrote:
>>> On 19 Aug 2006 05:29:31 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >paul packer wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "We think too much and feel too little?"
>>> >No, you feel too much and think too little.
>>>
>>> So you believe the part of my post you snipped is the result of my
>>> thinking too little, is that it?
>>
>>Whatever you feel petal.
>
>
> Can't answer a straight question, Ayn? That's not like you.
>

Hmmmm.... wow a new NG aus.hi-fi-religion, what ever next?
Careful though, YKW might have flashbacks and get all bitter and twisted
again. :-(

Cheers,
Alan

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
>
> Can't answer a straight question, Ayn? That's not like you.

If you'd learnt how to ask one, maybe, However, this has wandered so
far off topic it's totally innapropriate continuing such discussion
here. Not only that, but I have little interest in responding to so
called 'straight questions'. Anyone able to assert "In any case the
concept of a king having to perish for the regeneration of the people
(or crops perhaps) is as old as history, and contains a mystery which
it would be impractical to elucidate here." demonstrates a contempt for
logic and its place in theological discussion.( Elucidate the 'mystery'
and it no longer is one.) Not that there ever was a place for logic in
theology, despite Aquinus's attempts to pretend otherwise.

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this
mystery; a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full
number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it
is written :-
'The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob;
and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.'

Romans 11:25

" Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:"

1st Timothy3:16

[Ayn Marx]

Alan Rutlidge wrote:

> >
>
> Hmmmm.... wow a new NG aus.hi-fi-religion, what ever next?
> Careful though, YKW might have flashbacks and get all bitter and twisted
> again. :-(
>
Alan m'dear. YKW isn't able to quote chapter and verse. All that
remains of his miss-education is neurosis and sexual hangups, induced
by the worship of a semi-naked male nailed to a cross, amongst other
things.

Enough of religion already.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:03:16 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son.
>> >> the world cannot abide true holiness
>
>> >"I am not religious." -- paul packer, June 2006
>
>> No contradiction there, George. The problem is your conception of the
>> word "religious".
>
>Prattling about "God" and "His Son" and "holiness" -- not religious?
>Speaking parabolically, even cryptically -- not religious? You're the one
>who's lost the thread, paul.


As you wish, George. But many people use terms you would consider
"religious" who are not religious in the conventional sense at all--
Theosophists, Anthroposophists, even certain philosophers. My
"theology", if you want to call it that, comes mainly from the School
of Philosophy and the writings of Rudolph Steiner among others. No
religionists there. As I've said, I have no interest in or affiliation
with any religious organisation and have not been to church since the
age of 12. Am I then religious? I say no.

[paul packer]

On 20 Aug 2006 01:10:44 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>>
>> Can't answer a straight question, Ayn? That's not like you.
>
>If you'd learnt how to ask one, maybe, However, this has wandered so
>far off topic it's totally innapropriate continuing such discussion
>here. Not only that, but I have little interest in responding to so
>called 'straight questions'. Anyone able to assert "In any case the
>concept of a king having to perish for the regeneration of the people
>(or crops perhaps) is as old as history, and contains a mystery which
>it would be impractical to elucidate here." demonstrates a contempt for
>logic and its place in theological discussion.( Elucidate the 'mystery'
>and it no longer is one.)

There's no " contempt for logic" involved in what I said, Ayn. Not
even a contradiction. If you can't see that there really is no further
base for discussion.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:03:16 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son.
>> >> the world cannot abide true holiness
>
>> >"I am not religious." -- paul packer, June 2006
>
>> No contradiction there, George. The problem is your conception of the
>> word "religious".
>
>Prattling about "God" and "His Son" and "holiness"

BTW, George, I never "prattle". Prattling is against my religion. :-)

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
> If you can't see that there really is no further base for discussion.

On that we agree..................................

Today also my complaint is bitter,
His hand is heavy in spite of my groaning.
Oh, that I knew where I might find him,
That I might come even to his seat!
I would lay my case before him
and fill my mouth with arguments.
I would learn what he would answer me,
Would he contend with me in the
greatness of his power?
No; he would give heed to me.
There and upright man could reason with him,
and I should be acquited for ever by my judge.

Job 23:1-7

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> >> God doesn't torture His Son. God offers His Son.

> >Prattling about "God" and "His Son" and "holiness"

> BTW, George, I never "prattle". Prattling is against my religion. :-)

Gibbering, then? Or some other verb that connotes incoherence or a lapse
of sentience.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
My
> "theology", if you want to call it that, comes mainly from the School
> of Philosophy and the writings of Rudolph Steiner among others. No
> religionists there.

Ah! The horn full of bull**** - that explains it !..Still, the tiny
furniture for the kiddies was a good idea.

'When the accusers stood up, they came together here, they bought no
charge in his case of such evils as I supposed; but they had certain
points of dispute with him about their own superstition and about one
Jesus.'

Acts 25:18

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > paul packer said:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps you can now perform the same magic with POLITICAL discussion.
>> >
>> > Aren't you proud to be australian? You should take steps to bring down
>> > the
>> > law on Lyin' Bwian.
>>
>> **He's small potatoes. Our lying scumbag of a Prime Minister has to be
>> brought down first. Trouble is, unlike your idiot of a President, our PM
>> is
>> smart. He's still a liar though. Must be a Christian thing.
>
> Unnecessary slap at Christianity No. 436 by Trevor Wilson, whose grasp
> of electronics is sadly not matched by his grasp of metaphysics and the
> ethereal in general.
>
> In short, give us a break, Trev. :-)

**Sorry Paul. I can't stand hypocrisy. Worse, I can't stand the lack of
critical thinking displayed by (in this instance) Christians in the US.
Those idiots voted for George W Bush, based solely on the fact that he
claims to be a born again Christian. Dubya has shown himself to be a liar
and dangerously unbalanced. He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
enrichment of himself and those who surround him. He is, quite simply,
utterly evil and without any obvious morality. And yet, US Christians
continue to support him, just because he claims to be one of them. Our PM
also claims to be a Christian, yet sanctions some pretty disgusting acts,
which are the antithesis of what Christianity stands for.

My words stand.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...

>
> **Sorry Paul. I can't stand hypocrisy. Worse, I can't stand the lack of
> critical thinking displayed by (in this instance) Christians in the US.
> Those idiots voted for George W Bush, based solely on the fact that he
> claims to be a born again Christian.

That's just plain wrong. Generally, Christians
who voted for Bush did so for a combination of reasons.
And there are plenty of Christians who
are Democrats. Where is *YOUR* critical thinking?



Dubya has shown himself to be a liar
> and dangerously unbalanced. He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
> this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
> enrichment of himself and those who surround him.

You have no window into his soul. I believe he cares
about the well being of this nation, and looking
after it is his job.

He is, quite simply,
> utterly evil and without any obvious morality. And yet, US Christians
> continue to support him, just because he claims to be one of them. Our PM
> also claims to be a Christian, yet sanctions some pretty disgusting acts,
> which are the antithesis of what Christianity stands for.
>
> My words stand.
>

I wish I could say the same about your thought processes.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[paul packer]

On 20 Aug 2006 05:27:19 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> If you can't see that there really is no further base for discussion.
>
>On that we agree..................................
>
>Today also my complaint is bitter,
>His hand is heavy in spite of my groaning.
>Oh, that I knew where I might find him,
>That I might come even to his seat!
>I would lay my case before him
>and fill my mouth with arguments.
>I would learn what he would answer me,
>Would he contend with me in the
>greatness of his power?
>No; he would give heed to me.
>There and upright man could reason with him,
>and I should be acquited for ever by my judge.
>
>Job 23:1-7


Well, now we know you can quote scripture. But can you understand it?

[paul packer]

On 20 Aug 2006 15:06:42 -0700, "Ayn Marx" >
wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
> My
>> "theology", if you want to call it that, comes mainly from the School
>> of Philosophy and the writings of Rudolph Steiner among others. No
>> religionists there.
>
>Ah! The horn full of bull**** - that explains it !.

Yep, subject definitely closed. Goodnight, Ayn!

[paul packer]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>enrichment of himself and those who surround him. He is, quite simply,
>utterly evil and without any obvious morality.

Well, at least you've been able to maintain a sense of balance. :-)

[paul packer]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:38:34 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:


>> My words stand.
>>
>
>I wish I could say the same about your thought processes.


LOL!

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> **Sorry Paul. I can't stand hypocrisy. Worse, I can't stand the lack of
>> critical thinking displayed by (in this instance) Christians in the US.
>> Those idiots voted for George W Bush, based solely on the fact that he
>> claims to be a born again Christian.
>
> That's just plain wrong.

**Nope. Your opinion is wrong. It is well known that Dubya courted various
Christian groups to enable him to gain power. It's all on the record.

Generally, Christians
> who voted for Bush did so for a combination of reasons.

**Perhaps. I'll betcha they wouldn't have voted for him, if he told them
that he was going to lie to them. Nor if he had told them that he was using
alleged Christian status in order to gain their votes. I wonder if they
would have oted for him if he told than that he was going to trade several
thousand US (and many thousand more Iraqi) lives for some oil. It seems that
the First Commandment has eluded him. I wonder if it has eluded those
millions of Christians who voted for him. If it has, then it just goes to
prove the hypocrisy of American Christians.

> And there are plenty of Christians who
> are Democrats.

**Sure. What's your point?

> Where is *YOUR* critical thinking?

**Where it has always been.

>
>
>
> Dubya has shown himself to be a liar
>> and dangerously unbalanced. He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>> this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>> enrichment of himself and those who surround him.
>
> You have no window into his soul.

**I judge a person on their actions. Dubya has acted carelessly and
irresponsibly, since day one of his Presidency.

I believe he cares
> about the well being of this nation, and looking
> after it is his job.

**You can believe what you wish. I can only see a man who has sent more than
2,000 Americans to their deaths, in order to secure Iraqi oil for his
friends. Perhaps you see something different.

>
> He is, quite simply,
>> utterly evil and without any obvious morality. And yet, US Christians
>> continue to support him, just because he claims to be one of them. Our PM
>> also claims to be a Christian, yet sanctions some pretty disgusting acts,
>> which are the antithesis of what Christianity stands for.
>>
>> My words stand.
>>
>
> I wish I could say the same about your thought processes.

**It seems that is not going to happen anytime soon. Sadly, you don't have
the ability to see the obvious.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> **Sorry Paul. I can't stand hypocrisy. Worse, I can't stand the lack of
>>> critical thinking displayed by (in this instance) Christians in the US.
>>> Those idiots voted for George W Bush, based solely on the fact that he
>>> claims to be a born again Christian.
>>
>> That's just plain wrong.
>
> **Nope. Your opinion is wrong. It is well known that Dubya courted various
> Christian groups to enable him to gain power. It's all on the record.
>
> Generally, Christians
>> who voted for Bush did so for a combination of reasons.
>
> **Perhaps. I'll betcha they wouldn't have voted for him, if he told them
> that he was going to lie to them. Nor if he had told them that he was
> using alleged Christian status in order to gain their votes.

I don't think he pandered to them, its just the way he is.
he probably turned off as many voters as he impressed.

I wonder if they
> would have oted for him if he told than that he was going to trade several
> thousand US (and many thousand more Iraqi) lives for some oil.

That's like saying he should have told them 9/11 was going to happen.


It seems that
> the First Commandment has eluded him. I wonder if it has eluded those
> millions of Christians who voted for him. If it has, then it just goes to
> prove the hypocrisy of American Christians.
>
>> And there are plenty of Christians who
>> are Democrats.
>
> **Sure. What's your point?
>
>> Where is *YOUR* critical thinking?
>
> **Where it has always been.
>

You're sitting on it.


>>
>>
>>
>> Dubya has shown himself to be a liar
>>> and dangerously unbalanced. He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>> this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>>> enrichment of himself and those who surround him.
>>
>> You have no window into his soul.
>
> **I judge a person on their actions. Dubya has acted carelessly and
> irresponsibly, since day one of his Presidency.
>

Fine, judge his actions, that's fair, but don't malign his intentions, based
upon your warped view.



> I believe he cares
>> about the well being of this nation, and looking
>> after it is his job.
>
> **You can believe what you wish. I can only see a man who has sent more
> than 2,000 Americans to their deaths, in order to secure Iraqi oil for his
> friends. Perhaps you see something different.
>

We were buying oil before, we are buying oil now.
The only difference is that Kofi Annan's son, the French. and the Russians
are no
longer skimming any of it.




>>
>> He is, quite simply,
>>> utterly evil and without any obvious morality. And yet, US Christians
>>> continue to support him, just because he claims to be one of them. Our
>>> PM also claims to be a Christian, yet sanctions some pretty disgusting
>>> acts, which are the antithesis of what Christianity stands for.
>>>
>>> My words stand.
>>>
>>
>> I wish I could say the same about your thought processes.
>
> **It seems that is not going to happen anytime soon. Sadly, you don't have
> the ability to see the obvious.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

[Ayn Marx]

paul packer wrote:
>
> Well, now we know you can quote scripture. But can you understand it?

Understand a mystery?

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>>enrichment of himself and those who surround him. He is, quite simply,
>>utterly evil and without any obvious morality.
>
> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a sense of balance. :-)

**WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain how his actions can, in any
way, be regarded as Christian.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[mark steven brooks]

> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006


To that end they give the world slavery, genocide, material greed,
contempt for and destruction of the natural world, fascism....

[George M. Middius]

mark steven brooks said:

> > "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
> A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

> To that end they give the world slavery, genocide, material greed,
> contempt for and destruction of the natural world, fascism....

Polemicism is a weak parry to concentrated irony.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Ricky Hunt]

"mark steven brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and
>> supportive as is possible."
> A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
>
>
> To that end they give the world slavery, genocide, material greed,
> contempt for and destruction of the natural world, fascism....

It's impossible to lump all Christians together or use an example(s) (and
there's plenty of them) to broadbrush all Christians as that way. Even Jesus
said, "21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I
will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
(Matt. 7). So we should not be surprised that many people or "movements"
going under the name of "Christian" are guilty of the things you mention.
But there are some very good Christians (just like there's good people in
any "group"). The bad ones get all the press though.

[corks]

**** off back to where you came from and go **** up other newsgroups with
your mindless twaddle


"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
> George Middius and I have successfully stifled all discussion about audio
> in
> rec.audio.opinion.
>
> While there were a few hardnosed holdouts, it's clear now that all audio
> discussions here ARE OVER.
>
> We now move to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tubes, and aus.hi-fi to perform
> the
> same magic there!
>
> Luv
> Robert Morein
> Shop 'N Bag, PA
>
>

[Trevor Wilson]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>>>>enrichment of himself and those who surround him. He is, quite simply,
>>>>utterly evil and without any obvious morality.
>>>
>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a sense of balance. :-)
>>
>>**WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain how his actions can, in any
>>way, be regarded as Christian.
>
> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown to the lions, eh?

**Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Sorry Paul. I can't stand hypocrisy. Worse, I can't stand the lack of
>>>> critical thinking displayed by (in this instance) Christians in the US.
>>>> Those idiots voted for George W Bush, based solely on the fact that he
>>>> claims to be a born again Christian.
>>>
>>> That's just plain wrong.
>>
>> **Nope. Your opinion is wrong. It is well known that Dubya courted
>> various Christian groups to enable him to gain power. It's all on the
>> record.
>>
>> Generally, Christians
>>> who voted for Bush did so for a combination of reasons.
>>
>> **Perhaps. I'll betcha they wouldn't have voted for him, if he told them
>> that he was going to lie to them. Nor if he had told them that he was
>> using alleged Christian status in order to gain their votes.
>
> I don't think he pandered to them, its just the way he is.

**Your opinion is duly noted.

> he probably turned off as many voters as he impressed.

**Nope. The numbers were crunched and it was determined that Dubya, with his
born again status, was the right man to swing the election for the
Republicans, provided they could persuade the religious leaders to come on
board. They did.

>
> I wonder if they
>> would have oted for him if he told than that he was going to trade
>> several thousand US (and many thousand more Iraqi) lives for some oil.
>
> That's like saying he should have told them 9/11 was going to happen.

**Non-sequitur. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

>
>
> It seems that
>> the First Commandment has eluded him. I wonder if it has eluded those
>> millions of Christians who voted for him. If it has, then it just goes to
>> prove the hypocrisy of American Christians.
>>
>>> And there are plenty of Christians who
>>> are Democrats.
>>
>> **Sure. What's your point?
>>
>>> Where is *YOUR* critical thinking?
>>
>> **Where it has always been.
>>
>
> You're sitting on it.

**_I_ did not vote for Dubya. _I_ do not place my faith in fairytales and
the supernatural.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dubya has shown himself to be a liar
>>>> and dangerously unbalanced. He is one of the most un-Christian humans
>>>> on this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>>>> enrichment of himself and those who surround him.
>>>
>>> You have no window into his soul.
>>
>> **I judge a person on their actions. Dubya has acted carelessly and
>> irresponsibly, since day one of his Presidency.
>>
>
> Fine, judge his actions, that's fair, but don't malign his intentions,
> based
> upon your warped view.

**I can only judge his intentions on his actions.

>
>
>
>> I believe he cares
>>> about the well being of this nation, and looking
>>> after it is his job.
>>
>> **You can believe what you wish. I can only see a man who has sent more
>> than 2,000 Americans to their deaths, in order to secure Iraqi oil for
>> his friends. Perhaps you see something different.
>>
>
> We were buying oil before, we are buying oil now.

**How many American lives justify cheap oil? 200? 2,000? 20,000? 200,000?
Please put a number on it.You may also care to put a number on how many
Iraqis need to lose their lives, in order to enrich Dubya and his budies, by
supplying cheap oil. Care to put a number on that?

> The only difference is that Kofi Annan's son, the French. and the Russians
> are no
> longer skimming any of it.

**AFAIK, the French and Russinas weren't sacrificing any of their fine young
people to secure that oil. How many US citizens do YOU think should be
scarificed to ensure that cheap oil will flow to Dybya's buddies?



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Prune]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in news:1156131633.927227.255450
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

>
> paul packer wrote:
>>
>> Well, now we know you can quote scripture. But can you understand it?
>
> Understand a mystery?
>
>

What's a real mystery is how Americans can have such bad taste. I mean,
they thought Marilyn Monroe was pretty... what's with liking fat ugly
chicks? She only looked good in one of her photos:
http://fatboy.cc/images/marilyn%20monroe%202.jpg

[soundhaspriority]

It's a forgery by Brian L. McCarty, a yank resident in Cairns. You ought to
kick his ass out of Oz.

"corks" > wrote in message
...
> **** off back to where you came from and go **** up other newsgroups with
> your mindless twaddle
>
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> George Middius and I have successfully stifled all discussion about audio
>> in
>> rec.audio.opinion.
>>
>> While there were a few hardnosed holdouts, it's clear now that all audio
>> discussions here ARE OVER.
>>
>> We now move to rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tubes, and aus.hi-fi to perform
>> the
>> same magic there!
>>
>> Luv
>> Robert Morein
>> Shop 'N Bag, PA
>>
>>
>
>

[Trevor Wilson]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:40:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"flipper" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>>>this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>>>>>>enrichment of himself and those who surround him. He is, quite simply,
>>>>>>utterly evil and without any obvious morality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a sense of balance. :-)
>>>>
>>>>**WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain how his actions can, in
>>>>any
>>>>way, be regarded as Christian.
>>>
>>> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown to the lions, eh?
>>
>>**Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?
>
> Sure. Your argument implies that 'violence' is de facto 'unchristian'
> and the Roman 'Christians thrown to the lions' story is one of the
> classic parables of Christian passivism.

**Quite apart from the 'turn the other cheek' thing, I do not realistically
expect a Christian not to defend themselves, when attacked. Iraq never
attacked the US. Iraq never presented any kind of threat to the US, or it's
interests. Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care to explain
how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

> Would you care to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?


Compassion for Saddam's many victims.

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
> > Would you care to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?
>
> Compassion for Saddam's many victims.

Where was the compassion when we were supporting Saddam though ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:40:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in
>>>>>> message ...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>>>>> this planet. He cares not for the misery of others
>>>>>>>> and only for the enrichment of himself and those
>>>>>>>> who surround him. He is, quite simply, utterly
>>>>>>>> evil and without any obvious morality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a sense
>>>>>>> of balance. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain how
>>>>>> his actions can, in any
>>>>>> way, be regarded as Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown to
>>>>> the lions, eh?
>>>>
>>>> **Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?
>>>
>>> Sure. Your argument implies that 'violence' is de facto
>>> 'unchristian' and the Roman 'Christians thrown to the
>>> lions' story is one of the classic parables of
>>> Christian passivism.
>>
>> **Quite apart from the 'turn the other cheek' thing, I
>> do not realistically expect a Christian not to defend
>> themselves, when attacked. Iraq never attacked the US.

It is impossible, with all the interlocking and inter-related terrorist
organizations, to say that no Iraqi contributed to the well-known 9/11
attacks on the USA. Sadam was well-known to be contributing to various
terrorist organizations.

>> Iraq never presented any kind of threat to the US, or
>> it's interests.

Yeah, sure.

> Your premise is false.

Only in someone's dreams.

>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act.

Right, the attack on Iraq was the action of a secular government.

>> Would you care to explain
>> how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian
>> act?

As the illogic goes, the fact that there are people who allege that they are
Christians in the US govenment makes every Christian, everywhere culpable.

> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay on
> governance and international relations you're referring
> to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for you.

Very weak, Trevor. However this is strong compared to your claim that:

"Iraq never presented any kind of threat to the US, or it's interests."

At the very least Saddam was compensating some of the families of
Palestinian terror bombers who performed their reprehensible terror bombing
of civilians in Israel. Israel is very definately a U.S. interest.

[jakdedert]

flipper wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:27:54 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> paul packer wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would you care to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?
>>> Compassion for Saddam's many victims.
>> Where was the compassion when we were supporting Saddam though ?
>
> Myth.

What's the myth...that we supported Saddam? Are you really that blind,
or just stupid?
>
>> Graham
>>
>
>

[Trevor Wilson]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"flipper" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:40:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"flipper" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>>>>>this planet. He cares not for the misery of others and only for the
>>>>>>>>enrichment of himself and those who surround him. He is, quite
>>>>>>>>simply,
>>>>>>>>utterly evil and without any obvious morality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a sense of balance.
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain how his actions can, in
>>>>>>any
>>>>>>way, be regarded as Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown to the lions, eh?
>>>>
>>>>**Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?
>>>
>>> Sure. Your argument implies that 'violence' is de facto 'unchristian'
>>> and the Roman 'Christians thrown to the lions' story is one of the
>>> classic parables of Christian passivism.
>>
>>**Quite apart from the 'turn the other cheek' thing, I do not
>>realistically
>>expect a Christian not to defend themselves, when attacked. Iraq never
>>attacked the US. Iraq never presented any kind of threat to the US, or
>>it's
>>interests.
>
> Your premise is false.

**It's a fact, not a premise. Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
It did not have missile technology capable of reaching the US. It did not
have nuclear weapon capacity either. Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those
facts.

>
>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care to explain
>>how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?
>
> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay on governance
> and international relations you're referring to I'll see if I can help
> illuminate it for you.

**Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1. I take it that you are unable to
explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message

> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.

Sure Iraq has the capacity to harm US interests - it demonstrated that it
had the capacity to harm US interests.

> It did not have missile
> technology capable of reaching the US.

Sure Iraq has the capacity reach the US - it demonstrated that it had the
capacity to reach out and harm US interests.

> It did not have nuclear weapon capacity either.

Iraq did what it could to create the pretense of having nuclear weapons.

> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.

20-20 hindsight based on the fact that we eventually occupied Iraq.

>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care
>>> to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as
>>> a Christian act?

>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>> on governance and international relations you're
>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>> you.

> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.

Subsequently followed by numerous exceptions in the same book of the Bible.

> I take it that you
> are unable to explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq
> can be regarded as a Christian act?

Invading Iraq was a secular act, pure and simple.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
>
>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>
> Sure Iraq has the capacity to harm US interests - it demonstrated that it
> had the capacity to harm US interests.

**Then it chose not to do so, making the invasion even more mystifying.

>
>> It did not have missile
>> technology capable of reaching the US.
>
> Sure Iraq has the capacity reach the US

**It did not have MISSILE technology capable of reaching the US.


- it demonstrated that it had the
> capacity to reach out and harm US interests.

**Nope. It chose not to harm the US.

>
>> It did not have nuclear weapon capacity either.
>
> Iraq did what it could to create the pretense of having nuclear weapons.

**Iraq did not have nuclear arms capacity.

>
>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.
>
> 20-20 hindsight based on the fact that we eventually occupied Iraq.

**Nope. ALL these facts were pointed out to that idiot who you voted for,
well before the invasion. Your moronic leader chose to ignore the accurate
sources of information and listen to those who he wanted to believe.

>
>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care
>>>> to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as
>>>> a Christian act?
>
>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>>> on governance and international relations you're
>>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>>> you.
>
>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.
>
> Subsequently followed by numerous exceptions in the same book of the
> Bible.

**Cite those exceptions and relate them to the invasion of a nation which
posed no threat to the US.

>
>> I take it that you
>> are unable to explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq
>> can be regarded as a Christian act?
>
> Invading Iraq was a secular act, pure and simple.

**Sure. It was about the oil. Trouble is, it was initiated by a an alleged
Christian, who, presumably adheres to the tenants of the Bible. Please refer
to Commandment #1. The invasion of Iraq was not a Christian act. It was an
act of greed and massive stupidity, by a massively stupid man. A man YOU
helped put into office, I might add. I hope you are ashamed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[roughplanet]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

>>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.

>> Sure Iraq has the capacity to harm US interests - it demonstrated that it
>> had the capacity to harm US interests.

> **Then it chose not to do so, making the invasion even more mystifying.

>>> It did not have missile technology capable of reaching the US.

>> Sure Iraq has the capacity reach the US

> **It did not have MISSILE technology capable of reaching the US.

>> - it demonstrated that it had the capacity to reach out and harm US
>> interests.

> **Nope. It chose not to harm the US.

>>> It did not have nuclear weapon capacity either.

>> Iraq did what it could to create the pretense of having nuclear weapons.

> **Iraq did not have nuclear arms capacity.

>>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.

>> 20-20 hindsight based on the fact that we eventually occupied Iraq.

> **Nope. ALL these facts were pointed out to that idiot who you voted for,
> well before the invasion. Your moronic leader chose to ignore the accurate
> sources of information and listen to those who he wanted to believe.

>>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care to explain how
>>>>> the >>>>> invasion of Iraq can be regarded as a Christian act?

>>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay on governance
>>>> and >>>> international relations you're referring to I'll see if I can
>>>> help illuminate it for
>>>> you.

>>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.

>> Subsequently followed by numerous exceptions in the same book of the
>> Bible.

> **Cite those exceptions and relate them to the invasion of a nation which
> posed no threat to the US.

>>> I take it that you are unable to explain exactly how the invasion of
>>> Iraq
>>> can be regarded as a Christian act?

>> Invading Iraq was a secular act, pure and simple.

> **Sure. It was about the oil. Trouble is, it was initiated by a an alleged
> Christian, who, presumably adheres to the tenants of the Bible. Please
> refer to Commandment #1. The invasion of Iraq was not a Christian act. It
> was an act of greed and massive stupidity, by a massively stupid man. A
> man YOU helped put into office, I might add. I hope you are ashamed.

Sorry Arny, but Trevor's right. There have been many documentaries which
have revealed the facts regarding the misinformation used by 'Dubbya',
Blair & our own 'Little Johnnie' to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Trying to protect Dubbya from himself is a thankless task, as the man is so
stupid, he has to rely 100% on his advisors, most of whom are both oil men &
war mongerers.
Fat chance he has of ever making an enlightened decision about anything.
Catch him on his own without an advisor's hand up his back & he's likely to
say anything!

At least our PM isn't stupid; he's just a lying *******.

Oh, and for that moron 'jakdedert' who denied that the US had ever helped
Iraq, you must have a very short memory. Who do you think supported Iraq in
the Iran-Iraq war? Not the US? DUH!!!!
You should apply for a job as one of Dubbya's advisors. They've all got very
short memories too; the sort that advise Congress that 'I don't rightly
remember having said that'.

ruff

[jakdedert]

roughplanet wrote:
<snip>

>
> Oh, and for that moron 'jakdedert' who denied that the US had ever helped
> Iraq, you must have a very short memory. Who do you think supported Iraq in
> the Iran-Iraq war? Not the US? DUH!!!!
> You should apply for a job as one of Dubbya's advisors. They've all got very
> short memories too; the sort that advise Congress that 'I don't rightly
> remember having said that'.

Got the wrong moron. I never said any such thing...nor would I.

jak
>
> ruff
>
>
>

[roughplanet]

"jakdedert" > wrote in message
...
> roughplanet wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Oh, and for that moron 'jakdedert' who denied that the US had ever helped
>> Iraq, you must have a very short memory. Who do you think supported Iraq
>> in the Iran-Iraq war? Not the US? DUH!!!!
>> You should apply for a job as one of Dubbya's advisors. They've all got
>> very short memories too; the sort that advise Congress that 'I don't
>> rightly remember having said that'.
>
> Got the wrong moron. I never said any such thing...nor would I.
>
> jak

Then you have my humble apology sir; probably the only one you're ever
likely to get in this place :-).
It was in fact 'flipper' who determined the 'sense of implication' in the
statement 'Where was the compassion when we were supporting Saddam though?'
and declared it a myth.
Perhaps if he was to elaborate on his remark instead of just branding TW's
'a blanket assertion', it wouldn't seem so ridiculous

ruff

[roughplanet]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:16:50 +1000, "roughplanet"
> wrote:

>>"jakdedert" > wrote in message
...

>>>> Oh, and for that moron 'jakdedert' who denied that the US had ever
>>>> helped
>>>> Iraq, you must have a very short memory. Who do you think supported
>>>> Iraq
>>>> in the Iran-Iraq war? Not the US? DUH!!!!
>>>> You should apply for a job as one of Dubbya's advisors. They've all got
>>>> very short memories too; the sort that advise Congress that 'I don't
>>>> rightly remember having said that'.

>>> Got the wrong moron. I never said any such thing...nor would I.
>>> jak

>>Then you have my humble apology sir; probably the only one you're ever
>>likely to get in this place :-).
>>It was in fact 'flipper' who determined the 'sense of implication' in the
>>statement 'Where was the compassion when we were supporting Saddam
>>though?' >>and declared it a myth.

> I declared it a myth because it is, in the sense it was obviously
> intended... as if the U.S. 'liked' Saddam, 'liked' that he was a
> dictator, 'liked' that he was in power, and so 'supported' Saddam
> because the U.S. 'wanted' him to rule Iraq.

If you believe that anyone else believes that, you must think the rest of us
are also stupid.

> The U.S. 'supported' both sides during the Iraq-Iran war or, more
> accurately, didn't 'support' either, in the sense of wishing one to
> win, nor was the U.S. 'happy' with EITHER of the regimes. As Henry
> Kissinger lamented "it's a damn shame they can't both lose."

In a sense, they did.

> What the U.S. 'supported' was the status quo and carefully balanced
> it's actions to achieve it, which they did, because separate ass holes
> was better than one big ass hole. A case of choosing the least stink
> when all the available options stink.

>>Perhaps if he was to elaborate on his remark instead of just branding TW's
>>'a blanket assertion', it wouldn't seem so ridiculous

> I called it a blanket assertion because he gave nothing whatsoever,
> such as what 'support' meant, but the declaration.

OK, now you have elaborated on your remark, it doesn't seem so ridiculous.

ruff

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>> in message
>>
>>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>>
>> Sure Iraq has the capacity to harm US interests - it
>> demonstrated that it had the capacity to harm US
>> interests.

> **Then it chose not to do so, making the invasion even
> more mystifying.

It appears that Sadam's strategy was to allow the U.S. to occupy Iraq, and
then fight a distributed war of attrition.

>>> It did not have missile
>>> technology capable of reaching the US.

>> Sure Iraq has the capacity reach the US - it demonstrated that it had the
>> capacity to reach out and harm US interests

> **It did not have MISSILE technology capable of reaching
> the US.

I never said that it did. I said that Iraq had the capacity to harm US
interests. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be true.


>> Iraq did what it could to create the pretense of having
>> nuclear weapons.

> **Iraq did not have nuclear arms capacity.

We only know that because we occupied Iraq and painstakingly examined the
country up front and personal. Prior to that we only had satellite and high
altitude planes. Iraq was a very closed society.

>>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.

>> 20-20 hindsight based on the fact that we eventually
>> occupied Iraq.

> **Nope. ALL these facts were pointed out to that idiot
> who you voted for, well before the invasion.

Revisionist history. There was in fact a controversy. Nobody knew for sure.

> Your moronic leader chose to ignore the accurate sources of
> information and listen to those who he wanted to believe.

It was not clear which were the more accurate sources. The US secular
government erred on the side of safety - they overestimated the threat.
Which is better - overestimate or underestimate a threat?


>>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care
>>>>> to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as
>>>>> a Christian act?
>>
>>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>>>> on governance and international relations you're
>>>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>>>> you.
>>
>>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.
>>
>> Subsequently followed by numerous exceptions in the same
>> book of the Bible.
>
> **Cite those exceptions and relate them to the invasion
> of a nation which posed no threat to the US.

The invasion of Palestine by Joshua - check the book of Joshua which is of
course in the Old Testiment. This followed the delivery of the Ten
Commandments by at least 40 years.


>>> I take it that you
>>> are unable to explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq
>>> can be regarded as a Christian act?
>>
>> Invading Iraq was a secular act, pure and simple.

> **Sure.

Finally!

> It was about the oil.

No, it was about the threat of terrorism.

> Trouble is, it was
> initiated by a an alleged Christian, who, presumably
> adheres to the tenants of the Bible.

The introduction of Christianity here is entirely gratuitous. The U.S.
governement is not a Christian ecclesastical body - it is a secular
governement that routinely and systematically condones and finanacially
supports acts that Christian ecclesiatical groups abhor.

> Please refer to Commandment #1.

Asked and answered, twice already.

> The invasion of Iraq was not a Christian act.

Thank you.

> It was an act of greed and massive stupidity, by a
> massively stupid man.

I guess Australia is run by one man, Trevor. The U.S. is run by many. You
can't blame one man for the errors that the U.S. governement makes because
the U.S. govenement is run by many person who share the responsibility for
what it does.

> A man YOU helped put into office, I
> might add. I hope you are ashamed.


Unlike you Trevor, I don't pretend to be able to reliably foresee the future
because that is magic, and I don't believe in supernatural, superhuman,
supermen that can single-handedly run a government as big as the one we have
in the U.S. .

In short Trevor, you have professed faith in the existance of a supernatural
being, this mysterious superhuman president of the US who bares the sole
responsibility for the military actions in Iraq.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:57:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:40:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> message ...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor
>>>>>>>>> Wilson" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>>>>>>> this planet. He cares not for the misery of
>>>>>>>>>> others and only for the enrichment of himself
>>>>>>>>>> and those who surround him. He is, quite simply,
>>>>>>>>>> utterly evil and without any obvious morality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a
>>>>>>>>> sense of balance. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain how
>>>>>>>> his actions can, in any
>>>>>>>> way, be regarded as Christian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown to
>>>>>>> the lions, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Your argument implies that 'violence' is de
>>>>> facto 'unchristian' and the Roman 'Christians thrown
>>>>> to the lions' story is one of the classic parables of
>>>>> Christian passivism.
>>>>
>>>> **Quite apart from the 'turn the other cheek' thing, I
>>>> do not realistically
>>>> expect a Christian not to defend themselves, when
>>>> attacked. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never
>>>> presented any kind of threat to the US, or it's
>>>> interests.
>>>
>>> Your premise is false.
>>
>> **It's a fact,
>
> The hell it is. At best it's your opinion and one that
> the entire U.N. security council unanimously disagreed
> with.
>
>> not a premise.
>
> It's your premise, and a false one.
>
>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>
> Demonstrably untrue as just the small matter of them
> firing almost daily on U.S. aircraft demonstrated.
>
>> It did not have missile technology capable of reaching
>> the US. It did not have nuclear weapon capacity either.
>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.
>
> No one ever claimed the threat was from a direct attack
> of the conventional kind (meaning an overt declaration of
> 'war) so your premise is again, false.
>
>
>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care
>>>> to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as
>>>> a Christian act?
>>>
>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>>> on governance and international relations you're
>>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>>> you.
>>
>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.

> At the time of King James, when that translation was
> made, the word "kill" meant what we today call "murder,"
> which is an "unlawful taking of life."

Agreed. This is supported by any reasonable analysis of the context in which
the 10 Commandments were recorded. God gave the Israelites the 10
Commandments and within a few decades told them to wipe out every living
thing in Palestine. That included adults, children and animals. Joshua led
the campaign to do the deed, and God blessed him for his obedience and did
not punish him for causing zillions of human deaths. The only historical
problem is that Joshua didn't quite take God literally enough, and some
Palestinians survived to cause problems to this day.

>> I take it that you are unable to
>> explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded
>> as a Christian act?
>
> The point is your question is inherently invalid.

Trevor has got a personal problem - he needs to come up with reasons to
slander Christians and Christianity.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:28:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:57:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:40:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor
>>>>>>>>> Wilson" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson" >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this planet. He cares not for the misery of
>>>>>>>>>>>> others and only for the enrichment of himself
>>>>>>>>>>>> and those who surround him. He is, quite
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply, utterly evil and without any obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a
>>>>>>>>>>> sense of balance. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain
>>>>>>>>>> how his actions can, in any
>>>>>>>>>> way, be regarded as Christian.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown
>>>>>>>>> to the lions, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Your argument implies that 'violence' is de
>>>>>>> facto 'unchristian' and the Roman 'Christians thrown
>>>>>>> to the lions' story is one of the classic parables
>>>>>>> of Christian passivism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Quite apart from the 'turn the other cheek' thing,
>>>>>> I do not realistically
>>>>>> expect a Christian not to defend themselves, when
>>>>>> attacked. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never
>>>>>> presented any kind of threat to the US, or it's
>>>>>> interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your premise is false.
>>>>
>>>> **It's a fact,
>>>
>>> The hell it is. At best it's your opinion and one that
>>> the entire U.N. security council unanimously disagreed
>>> with.
>>>
>>>> not a premise.
>>>
>>> It's your premise, and a false one.
>>>
>>>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>>>
>>> Demonstrably untrue as just the small matter of them
>>> firing almost daily on U.S. aircraft demonstrated.
>>>
>>>> It did not have missile technology capable of reaching
>>>> the US. It did not have nuclear weapon capacity either.
>>>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.
>>>
>>> No one ever claimed the threat was from a direct attack
>>> of the conventional kind (meaning an overt declaration
>>> of 'war) so your premise is again, false.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you
>>>>>> care to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be
>>>>>> regarded as a Christian act?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>>>>> on governance and international relations you're
>>>>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.
>>
>>> At the time of King James, when that translation was
>>> made, the word "kill" meant what we today call "murder,"
>>> which is an "unlawful taking of life."
>>
>> Agreed. This is supported by any reasonable analysis of
>> the context in which the 10 Commandments were recorded.
>> God gave the Israelites the 10 Commandments and within a
>> few decades told them to wipe out every living thing in
>> Palestine. That included adults, children and animals.
>> Joshua led the campaign to do the deed, and God blessed
>> him for his obedience and did not punish him for causing
>> zillions of human deaths. The only historical problem is
>> that Joshua didn't quite take God literally enough, and
>> some Palestinians survived to cause problems to this
>> day.
>
> That does predate the 'Christian' era by a few years,
> though.
>
>>
>>>> I take it that you are unable to
>>>> explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq can be
>>>> regarded as a Christian act?
>>>
>>> The point is your question is inherently invalid.
>>
>> Trevor has got a personal problem - he needs to come up
>> with reasons to slander Christians and Christianity.
>>
>
> Yeah, I noticed.

In his defense, Trevor is quite the gentleman, compared to Middius, Phildo,
and George Gleason.

[jakdedert]

flipper wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:16:50 +1000, "roughplanet"
> > wrote:
>
>> "jakdedert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> roughplanet wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Oh, and for that moron 'jakdedert' who denied that the US had ever helped
>>>> Iraq, you must have a very short memory. Who do you think supported Iraq
>>>> in the Iran-Iraq war? Not the US? DUH!!!!
>>>> You should apply for a job as one of Dubbya's advisors. They've all got
>>>> very short memories too; the sort that advise Congress that 'I don't
>>>> rightly remember having said that'.
>>> Got the wrong moron. I never said any such thing...nor would I.
>>>
>>> jak
>> Then you have my humble apology sir; probably the only one you're ever
>> likely to get in this place :-).
>> It was in fact 'flipper' who determined the 'sense of implication' in the
>> statement 'Where was the compassion when we were supporting Saddam though?'
>> and declared it a myth.
>
> I declared it a myth because it is, in the sense it was obviously
> intended... as if the U.S. 'liked' Saddam, 'liked' that he was a
> dictator, 'liked' that he was in power, and so 'supported' Saddam
> because the U.S. 'wanted' him to rule Iraq.
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm>
"US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first
time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as
early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt
against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and
Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money,
satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As
many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick
targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks."

<http://www.unknownnews.net/saddam.html>
"While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S.
intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war,
his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was
part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then
Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."
>
> The U.S. 'supported' both sides during the Iraq-Iran war or, more
> accurately, didn't 'support' either, in the sense of wishing one to
> win, nor was the U.S. 'happy' with EITHER of the regimes. As Henry
> Kissinger lamented "it's a damn shame they can't both lose."
>
<http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.18A.neswk.us.iraq.htm>
How the U.S. Helped Create Saddam Hussein
By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas
Newsweek | MSNBC.com
"American officials have known that Saddam was a psychopath ever since
he became the country's de facto ruler in the early 1970s. One of
Saddam's early acts after he took the title of president in 1979 was to
videotape a session of his party's congress, during which he personally
ordered several members executed on the spot. The message, carefully
conveyed to the Arab press, was not that these men were executed for
plotting against Saddam, but rather for thinking about plotting against
him."

> What the U.S. 'supported' was the status quo and carefully balanced
> it's actions to achieve it, which they did, because separate ass holes
> was better than one big ass hole. A case of choosing the least stink
> when all the available options stink.
>
From: <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0613-03.htm> reprinted
from the Scottish 'Sunday Herald' (6/13/04)

""America was fully aware of Saddam's war crimes. A November 1983 US
memorandum from the bureau of politico-military affairs to the then
secretary of state George Shultz, headed Iraqi Use Of Chemical Weapons,
confirms that America knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on an
"almost daily basis". Another State Department memo, also written in
November 1983 - this time from the office of the assistant secretary for
near Eastern and South Asian affairs - says the US should tell Saddam
that America knows about the use of poison gas, as that would "avoid
unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to
take on this issue". However, State Department documents also reveal
that America decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW
[chemical weapon] program to close monitoring because of our strict
neutrality".

Other State Department cables sent around this time show that America
knew Iraq used chemical weapons in October 1982 and in July and August
1983, "and more recently against Kurdish insurgents". Reagan also knew
by the end of 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms,
Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up
large reserves of CW for further use".

"Iraq's use of chemical weapons was not discussed at all during
Rumsfeld's meeting, an omission entirely consistent with US policy. On
November 1, 1983, the State Department noted in a memo that Saddam had
acquired "CW capability", possibly from the USA. But two sentences
later, the same memo says: "Presently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its
war of attrition against Iran. After a recent meeting on the war, a
discussion paper was sent to the White House for a National Security
Council meeting, a section of which outlines a number of measures we
might take to assist Iraq.""

Also see: <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/>

>> Perhaps if he was to elaborate on his remark instead of just branding TW's
>> 'a blanket assertion', it wouldn't seem so ridiculous
>
> I called it a blanket assertion because he gave nothing whatsoever,
> such as what 'support' meant, but the declaration.
>
>
>> ruff
>>
>
>

[Margaret von B]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "flipper" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:28:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:57:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:45:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:40:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "flipper" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:36:30 +1000, "Trevor
>>>>>>>>>> Wilson" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "paul packer" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:57:55 +1000, "Trevor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson" >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is one of the most un-Christian humans on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this planet. He cares not for the misery of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> others and only for the enrichment of himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and those who surround him. He is, quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply, utterly evil and without any obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> morality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, at least you've been able to maintain a
>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of balance. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **WRT Dubya's invasion of Iraq, please explain
>>>>>>>>>>> how his actions can, in any
>>>>>>>>>>> way, be regarded as Christian.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You figure the 'Christian' thing is to be thrown
>>>>>>>>>> to the lions, eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Huh? Wanna expand on that a little?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. Your argument implies that 'violence' is de
>>>>>>>> facto 'unchristian' and the Roman 'Christians thrown
>>>>>>>> to the lions' story is one of the classic parables
>>>>>>>> of Christian passivism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Quite apart from the 'turn the other cheek' thing,
>>>>>>> I do not realistically
>>>>>>> expect a Christian not to defend themselves, when
>>>>>>> attacked. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never
>>>>>>> presented any kind of threat to the US, or it's
>>>>>>> interests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your premise is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> **It's a fact,
>>>>
>>>> The hell it is. At best it's your opinion and one that
>>>> the entire U.N. security council unanimously disagreed
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>>> not a premise.
>>>>
>>>> It's your premise, and a false one.
>>>>
>>>>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>>>>
>>>> Demonstrably untrue as just the small matter of them
>>>> firing almost daily on U.S. aircraft demonstrated.
>>>>
>>>>> It did not have missile technology capable of reaching
>>>>> the US. It did not have nuclear weapon capacity either.
>>>>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.
>>>>
>>>> No one ever claimed the threat was from a direct attack
>>>> of the conventional kind (meaning an overt declaration
>>>> of 'war) so your premise is again, false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you
>>>>>>> care to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be
>>>>>>> regarded as a Christian act?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>>>>>> on governance and international relations you're
>>>>>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.
>>>
>>>> At the time of King James, when that translation was
>>>> made, the word "kill" meant what we today call "murder,"
>>>> which is an "unlawful taking of life."
>>>
>>> Agreed. This is supported by any reasonable analysis of
>>> the context in which the 10 Commandments were recorded.
>>> God gave the Israelites the 10 Commandments and within a
>>> few decades told them to wipe out every living thing in
>>> Palestine. That included adults, children and animals.
>>> Joshua led the campaign to do the deed, and God blessed
>>> him for his obedience and did not punish him for causing
>>> zillions of human deaths. The only historical problem is
>>> that Joshua didn't quite take God literally enough, and
>>> some Palestinians survived to cause problems to this
>>> day.
>>
>> That does predate the 'Christian' era by a few years,
>> though.
>>
>>>
>>>>> I take it that you are unable to
>>>>> explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq can be
>>>>> regarded as a Christian act?
>>>>
>>>> The point is your question is inherently invalid.
>>>
>>> Trevor has got a personal problem - he needs to come up
>>> with reasons to slander Christians and Christianity.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed.
>
> In his defense, Trevor is quite the gentleman, compared to Middius,
> Phildo, and George Gleason.

Of course Arnii wouldn't recognize a gentleman even if one sat on Arnii's
ABX box. But apparently the early asshole sometimes gets the worm too.

Cheers!

Margaret

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>>> in message
>>>
>>>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>>>
>>> Sure Iraq has the capacity to harm US interests - it
>>> demonstrated that it had the capacity to harm US
>>> interests.
>
>> **Then it chose not to do so, making the invasion even
>> more mystifying.
>
> It appears that Sadam's strategy was to allow the U.S. to occupy Iraq, and
> then fight a distributed war of attrition.

**How so? Saddam is no longer in power. Saddam tried to prevent the US from
invading. Did you forget that?

>
>>>> It did not have missile
>>>> technology capable of reaching the US.
>
>>> Sure Iraq has the capacity reach the US - it demonstrated that it had
>>> the
>>> capacity to reach out and harm US interests
>
>> **It did not have MISSILE technology capable of reaching
>> the US.
>
> I never said that it did.

**I know. I said that. You ignored the fact.

I said that Iraq had the capacity to harm US
> interests. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be true.

**Not in any serious manner. Certainly not as seriously as other nations
have. Saudis, for instance, have been known to cause the deaths of thousands
of US citizens. The very same Saudis who have close links to the Saudi Royal
Family.

>
>
>>> Iraq did what it could to create the pretense of having
>>> nuclear weapons.
>
>> **Iraq did not have nuclear arms capacity.
>
> We only know that because we occupied Iraq and painstakingly examined the
> country up front and personal. Prior to that we only had satellite and
> high altitude planes. Iraq was a very closed society.

**The UN reported very comprehensively on the capabilities of Iraq. Dubya
chose to ignore the facts presented by the people who were actually on the
ground.

>
>>>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.
>
>>> 20-20 hindsight based on the fact that we eventually
>>> occupied Iraq.
>
>> **Nope. ALL these facts were pointed out to that idiot
>> who you voted for, well before the invasion.
>
> Revisionist history. There was in fact a controversy. Nobody knew for
> sure.

**Nonsense. Iraq was one of the most intensely studied nations, during the
1990s. Very little went on, which the US was not aware of.

>
>> Your moronic leader chose to ignore the accurate sources of
>> information and listen to those who he wanted to believe.
>
> It was not clear which were the more accurate sources.

**It was and IS abundantly clear.

The US secular
> government erred on the side of safety - they overestimated the threat.
> Which is better - overestimate or underestimate a threat?

**THERE WAS NO THREAT! Not ever. That said, Dubya has caused a far more
serious situation to develop, by lying to the US public.

>
>
>>>>>> Attacking Iraq was not a Christian act. Would you care
>>>>>> to explain how the invasion of Iraq can be regarded as
>>>>>> a Christian act?
>>>
>>>>> If you'll tell me which particular New Testament essay
>>>>> on governance and international relations you're
>>>>> referring to I'll see if I can help illuminate it for
>>>>> you.
>>>
>>>> **Thou shalt not kill. Commandment #1.
>>>
>>> Subsequently followed by numerous exceptions in the same
>>> book of the Bible.
>>
>> **Cite those exceptions and relate them to the invasion
>> of a nation which posed no threat to the US.
>
> The invasion of Palestine by Joshua - check the book of Joshua which is of
> course in the Old Testiment. This followed the delivery of the Ten
> Commandments by at least 40 years.

**Why did Joshua invade Palestine?

>
>
>>>> I take it that you
>>>> are unable to explain exactly how the invasion of Iraq
>>>> can be regarded as a Christian act?
>>>
>>> Invading Iraq was a secular act, pure and simple.
>
>> **Sure.
>
> Finally!

**That has been my point. Dubya CLAIMS to be a Christian, but, by his acts,
has no concept of what being a Christian means.

>
>> It was about the oil.
>
> No, it was about the threat of terrorism.

**Wrong. Saddam was not a terrorist threat. Saudi Arabia is a far more
serious terrorist threat. Of course, nothing will be done there, since the
oil already flows to Dubya's buddies from Saudi Arabia. Iraq oil did not, so
Dubya did something about that. Why do you continually to fail to see the
bloody obvious? The major terrorist threat to the US is OBL. Dubya has
diverted resources away from his capture, in order to secure Iraqi oil.

>
>> Trouble is, it was
>> initiated by a an alleged Christian, who, presumably
>> adheres to the tenants of the Bible.
>
> The introduction of Christianity here is entirely gratuitous.

**No, it is not. Dubya gained power, by appealing to US Christians. HE then
acted in a completely un-Christian way, by killing Iraqis, in order to
secure oil for his buddies.

The U.S.
> governement is not a Christian ecclesastical body - it is a secular
> governement that routinely and systematically condones and finanacially
> supports acts that Christian ecclesiatical groups abhor.

**There are so many different Christian groups, with so many weird ideas,
that not everyone will be happy with every decision made by government.

>
>> Please refer to Commandment #1.
>
> Asked and answered, twice already.
>
>> The invasion of Iraq was not a Christian act.
>
> Thank you.

**Dubya acted in an un-Christian way.

>
>> It was an act of greed and massive stupidity, by a
>> massively stupid man.
>
> I guess Australia is run by one man, Trevor. The U.S. is run by many.

**Sure. And they mostly earn their REAL income from oil and/or operating a
war (see Haliburton). Disgusting.

You
> can't blame one man for the errors that the U.S. governement makes because
> the U.S. govenement is run by many person who share the responsibility for
> what it does.

**I don't. I blame the mess created by Dubya on Dubya and his cabal of
criminal buddies. They're in it for the money.

>
>> A man YOU helped put into office, I
>> might add. I hope you are ashamed.
>
>
> Unlike you Trevor, I don't pretend to be able to reliably foresee the
> future because that is magic,

**One can realistically predict the performance of a man, based on his
previous actions. Dubya is a draft dodging, drunken, drug addicted moron,
married to a murderer. That's a pretty good CV. Not!

and I don't believe in supernatural,

**You don't believe in God? Good work. I'm pleased that you finally see the
light.

superhuman,
> supermen that can single-handedly run a government as big as the one we
> have in the U.S. .

**Dubya is assisted by a bunch of self-serving criminals.

>
> In short Trevor, you have professed faith in the existance of a
> supernatural being,

**Not since I was 12.

this mysterious superhuman president of the US who bares the sole
> responsibility for the military actions in Iraq.

**The Buck stops with Dubya. That's the way it works.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>> in message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Iraq did not have the capacity to harm the US.
>>>>
>>>> Sure Iraq has the capacity to harm US interests - it
>>>> demonstrated that it had the capacity to harm US
>>>> interests.
>>
>>> **Then it chose not to do so, making the invasion even
>>> more mystifying.
>>
>> It appears that Sadam's strategy was to allow the U.S.
>> to occupy Iraq, and then fight a distributed war of
>> attrition.

> **How so? Saddam is no longer in power.

Thanks Trevor for showing that the meaning of the word "was" is lost on you.

> Saddam tried to prevent the US from invading.

Not all that hard.

> Did you forget that?

Never saw it happen.

>>>>> It did not have missile
>>>>> technology capable of reaching the US.
>>
>>>> Sure Iraq has the capacity reach the US - it
>>>> demonstrated that it had the
>>>> capacity to reach out and harm US interests

>>> **It did not have MISSILE technology capable of reaching
>>> the US.

>> I never said that it did.

> **I know. I said that. You ignored the fact.

Just like you ignore the fact that Saddam need not have a missile that can
reach the US mainland in order to have a missile that can and has attacked
U.S interests.

>> I said that Iraq had the capacity to harm US
>> interests. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to
>> be true.

> **Not in any serious manner.

I call dead Americans and Israelis serious incursions on U.S. interests.

> Certainly not as seriously as other nations have.

Agreed that Saddam y hurt the Iranians and the Kurds far worse.

> Saudis, for instance, have been
> known to cause the deaths of thousands of US citizens.

I believe that by now thousands of US citizens have died in Iraq. What's the
current number, about 2,500. We're beginning to move into numbers that bear
comparing with the WTC, right?

> The very same Saudis who have close links to the Saudi
> Royal Family.

You're stretching the truth Trevor. Of course Bin Laden has close links to
the Saudi Royal family, but its not like he's one of their favorites.

>>>> Iraq did what it could to create the pretense of having
>>>> nuclear weapons.

>>> **Iraq did not have nuclear arms capacity.

Thanks Trevor for showing that the meaning of the word "pretense" is lost on
you. Given that you didn't get the meaning of the word "was", this is
completely understandable.

>> We only know that because we occupied Iraq and
>> painstakingly examined the country up front and
>> personal. Prior to that we only had satellite and high
>> altitude planes. Iraq was a very closed society.

> **The UN reported very comprehensively on the
> capabilities of Iraq.

So says you. I found the U.N. reports to be fragmentary and speculative.
They surely did not compare to what we found out when we had boots on the
ground en masse.

> Dubya chose to ignore the facts
> presented by the people who were actually on the ground.

There were no reliable facts - just a lot of inferences and speculations.
What we know now is a lot closer to deserving the word "fact".


>>>>> Even Dubya has (finally) admitted those facts.
>>
>>>> 20-20 hindsight based on the fact that we eventually
>>>> occupied Iraq.
>>
>>> **Nope. ALL these facts were pointed out to that idiot
>>> who you voted for, well before the invasion.
>>
>> Revisionist history. There was in fact a controversy.
>> Nobody knew for sure.

> **Nonsense.

End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B" > wrote in message


> But apparently the early
> asshole sometimes gets the worm too.

Thanks for this insight from your true area of expertise, Maggie.

BTW, hows it going with that weight problem? Are you going to need a staple
in the stomach, like Phildo did?

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
> message
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
>
> >> We only know that because we occupied Iraq and
> >> painstakingly examined the country up front and
> >> personal. Prior to that we only had satellite and high
> >> altitude planes. Iraq was a very closed society.
>
> > **The UN reported very comprehensively on the
> > capabilities of Iraq.
>
> So says you. I found the U.N. reports to be fragmentary and speculative.
> They surely did not compare to what we found out when we had boots on the
> ground en masse.

Eh ? Wot no WMD ?

Graham

[paul packer]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>> **Nonsense.
>
>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
>Trevor.

Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor. No way will Arnie put up with
that kind of treatment, and rightly so.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:03:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Margaret von B" > wrote in message

>
>> But apparently the early
>> asshole sometimes gets the worm too.
>
>Thanks for this insight from your true area of expertise, Maggie.

I wonder what attracted you to this post, Arnie. :-)

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> **Nonsense.
>>
>>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
>>Trevor.
>
> Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor.

**Nonsense. Arny accused ME of believing in the supernatural. I have not
done so, since I was a child. My position on the supernatural is well known
by Arny. My dismissive attitude was because I was not inventing revisionist
history. I was quoting ACTUAL history. Dubya was informed, in no uncertain
terms, by the UN about the state of Iraqi WMD development and the missile
technology they possessed. Dubya chose, instead, to cite lies and innuendo
about Iraq, in order to justify his war for oil. Arny deserves my derision.
He has clearly compromised memory and critical thinking abilities.

No way will Arnie put up with
> that kind of treatment, and rightly so.

**Why are you siding with such an idiot?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> **Nonsense.
> >>
> >>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
> >>Trevor.
> >
> > Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor.
>
> **Nonsense. Arny accused ME of believing in the supernatural. I have not
> done so, since I was a child. My position on the supernatural is well known
> by Arny. My dismissive attitude was because I was not inventing revisionist
> history. I was quoting ACTUAL history. Dubya was informed, in no uncertain
> terms, by the UN about the state of Iraqi WMD development and the missile
> technology they possessed. Dubya chose, instead, to cite lies and innuendo
> about Iraq, in order to justify his war for oil. Arny deserves my derision.
> He has clearly compromised memory and critical thinking abilities.
>
> > No way will Arnie put up with
> > that kind of treatment, and rightly so.
>
> **Why are you siding with such an idiot?

I thought it was meant as irony actually.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> >> **Nonsense.

> >>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
> >>Trevor.

> > Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor.

> **Nonsense. Arny accused ME of believing in the supernatural

> > No way will Arnie put up with
> > that kind of treatment, and rightly so.

> **Why are you siding with such an idiot?

Are you posting in your sleep? I thought you were smarter than this.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> **Nonsense.
>>
>>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
>>Trevor.
>
> Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor. No way will Arnie put up with
> that kind of treatment, and rightly so.

**WHOOSH! Sorry Paul. I completely missed your real intent.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> **Nonsense.
>>>
>>>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive
>>>attitude,
>>>Trevor.
>>
>> Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor. No way will Arnie put up with
>> that kind of treatment, and rightly so.
>
> **WHOOSH! Sorry Paul. I completely missed your real intent.

Just as you missed Bush's.

So how do you like Bashir's declaration that Indonesia become a
sharia law Islamic state?

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> So how do you like Bashir's declaration that Indonesia become a
> sharia law Islamic state?

He's a loony. Who cares ?

Graham

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> So how do you like Bashir's declaration that Indonesia become a
>> sharia law Islamic state?
>
> He's a loony. Who cares ?

So how many highly influential muslims can you
write off as a loony not to be concerned about?

While they haven't pinned him with direct responsibility,
this is the guy who is most likely behind all the bombings
in Indonesia. At the minimum he is a religious influence behind
the bombings.

You want to know why they blow things up?
He tells you why...and you write him off as a loony
just as you write off the president of Iran's words.

But when the disaster strikes..I'll be George Bush's fault
AFAYAC.

In the face of all this...I know who the real loonies are.

ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:l3NHg.7561$Mz3.2319@fed1read07...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> **Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
>>>>Trevor.
>>>
>>> Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor. No way will Arnie put up with
>>> that kind of treatment, and rightly so.
>>
>> **WHOOSH! Sorry Paul. I completely missed your real intent.
>
> Just as you missed Bush's.

**Nope. It was always about the oil.

>
> So how do you like Bashir's declaration that Indonesia become a
> sharia law Islamic state?

**Personally, I detest ANY kind of religious or oppressive state, be it
Christian, Muslim or atheist. However, if the Indonesians want it, then that
would be their choice. Religion has no place in the operation of any state
or nation. Religion should remain the personal choice of individuals. It
should never be forced on anyone, including children. Naturally, religion
has no place in schools. I could argue that parents who indoctrinate their
children into their particular form of supernatural belief system are
nothing short of child-abusers. I realise that this is my opinion and may
not represent the opinions of the majority.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **Personally, I detest ANY kind of religious or oppressive state, be it
> Christian, Muslim or atheist. However, if the Indonesians want it, then that
> would be their choice.

It's called self-determination ( as in freedom ). However some ppl believe that
freedom can only be 'our kind of freedom' !


> Religion has no place in the operation of any state
> or nation. Religion should remain the personal choice of individuals. It
> should never be forced on anyone, including children. Naturally, religion
> has no place in schools. I could argue that parents who indoctrinate their
> children into their particular form of supernatural belief system are
> nothing short of child-abusers. I realise that this is my opinion and may
> not represent the opinions of the majority.

It would certainly upset the religious right in the USA who back GWB ! I wonder
how they'd respond to being told that religion couldn't even be taught in
schools never mind religious outfits running them ! Maybe they'd start blowing
things up ?

What's sauce for the goose.............

Graham

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:37:33 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
> >ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> So how do you like Bashir's declaration that Indonesia become a
> >> sharia law Islamic state?
> >
> >He's a loony. Who cares ?
>
> That's what they said about the silly little National Socialist German
> Workers Party.

You're a loony. Who cares ?

Graham

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **Personally, I detest ANY kind of religious or oppressive state,
>> be it
>> Christian, Muslim or atheist. However, if the Indonesians want it,
>> then that
>> would be their choice.
>
> It's called self-determination ( as in freedom ). However some ppl
> believe that
> freedom can only be 'our kind of freedom' !

Hard to understand how self determination is possible considering
the constant threat of violence Bashir claims is his religious right.

>
>
>> Religion has no place in the operation of any state
>> or nation. Religion should remain the personal choice of
>> individuals. It
>> should never be forced on anyone, including children. Naturally,
>> religion
>> has no place in schools. I could argue that parents who
>> indoctrinate their
>> children into their particular form of supernatural belief system
>> are
>> nothing short of child-abusers. I realise that this is my opinion
>> and may
>> not represent the opinions of the majority.
>
> It would certainly upset the religious right in the USA who back GWB
> ! I wonder
> how they'd respond to being told that religion couldn't even be
> taught in
> schools never mind religious outfits running them ! Maybe they'd
> start blowing
> things up ?

Bashir would tell you that Muslims should not submit to rule under
kafirs. It is those teachings that inspire young men to blow
themselves up on your buses and planes.
Still you find more to hate in American christians than in
him. Simply amazing.

ScottW

[roughplanet]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:03:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

"Margaret von B" > wrote in message


>>> But apparently the early
>>> asshole sometimes gets the worm too.

>>Thanks for this insight from your true area of expertise, Maggie.

> I wonder what attracted you to this post, Arnie. :-)

That's easy; Arnie's 'Christian' bot, hard at work as usual. Bet his 'White
Anglo-Saxon Protestant' bot doesn't get much work these days :-).

ruff

[paul packer]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:02:07 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:02:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> **Nonsense.
>>>
>>>End of discussion on the grounds of your abusive dismissive attitude,
>>>Trevor.
>>
>> Yep, that was pretty abusive, Trevor. No way will Arnie put up with
>> that kind of treatment, and rightly so.
>
>**WHOOSH! Sorry Paul. I completely missed your real intent.

Well, you're not the first one, Trevor. I accuse George of being too
subtle but fall into the trap myself apparently.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:28:55 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>Are you posting in your sleep?

No, he's actually posting while simultaneously re-soldering three
circuit boards and checking the integrity of a faulty diode. This is
just a hobby.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Are you posting in your sleep?

> No, he's[sic] actually posting while simultaneously re-soldering three
> circuit boards and checking the integrity of a faulty diode. This is
> just a hobby.

Thank's Mr. pecker for admitting mr. PAckre that, its like you can do a
scokpuppet LOt"S but, you cant hide you're identitty Mr. Pruker.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[paul packer]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:07:11 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >Are you posting in your sleep?
>
>> No, he's[sic] actually posting while simultaneously re-soldering three
>> circuit boards and checking the integrity of a faulty diode. This is
>> just a hobby.
>
>Thank's Mr. pecker for admitting mr. PAckre that, its like you can do a
>scokpuppet LOt"S but, you cant hide you're identitty Mr. Pruker.

Very good impression, George, but why is there a (sic) after "he's".
Is it not "he is actually posting..."? What am I missing?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> >Are you posting in your sleep?

> >> No, he's[sic] actually posting while simultaneously re-soldering three
> >> circuit boards and checking the integrity of a faulty diode. This is
> >> just a hobby.

> >Thank's Mr. pecker for admitting mr. PAckre that, its like you can do a
> >scokpuppet LOt"S but, you cant hide you're identitty Mr. Pruker.

> Very good impression, George, but why is there a (sic) after "he's".
> Is it not "he is actually posting..."? What am I missing?

scokpuppet! scokpuppet! scokpuppet!




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006