[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being humiliated by Mistress Jenn.
He's so elated that he sent out e-cards to all the other milquetoasts in his
club. Here's the picture he used to commemorate the splendiferous event:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Iul, 21:20, George M. Middius wrote:
The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being humiliated by Mistress Jenn.
He's so elated that he sent out e-cards to all the other milquetoasts in his
club. Here's the picture he used to commemorate the splendiferous event:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg


"At least" he is wearing the pants (of a sort) in his alter-'family'.

[TT]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message ...




The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being humiliated
by Mistress Jenn.
He's so elated that he sent out e-cards to all the other
milquetoasts in his
club. Here's the picture he used to commemorate the
splendiferous event:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg

After seeing that picture of Jenn I am totally appalled now.
I didn't know she was a smoker ;-)

Cheers TT

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being humiliated
by Mistress Jenn. He's so elated that he sent out e-cards
to all the other milquetoasts in his club. Here's the
picture he used to commemorate the splendiferous event:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg

One wonders what makes an alleged adult make an idiotic, childish post like
this. What is even more amazing is that two other alleged adults chimed in
with their approval. Perhaps we could find a mental health care
professional explain this occurrence, as it is not all that unusual on RAO.
Dr, Gindi???

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being humiliated
by Mistress Jenn. He's so elated that he sent out e-cards
to all the other milquetoasts in his club. Here's the
picture he used to commemorate the splendiferous event:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg

One wonders what makes an alleged adult make an idiotic, childish post
like this.

Humans call it humour. Mirth! Witicism! Or just having a laugh with your
mates. Something that you obviously can't understand :-(

What is even more amazing is that two other alleged adults chimed in with
their approval.

Sigh............. It's called sharing a joke and having a laugh.

Perhaps we could find a mental health care professional explain this
occurrence, as it is not all that unusual on RAO. Dr, Gindi???

No, it is normal human interaction and it is a phenomenon called "having a
laugh". It keeps normal people happy and content with their lot in life.
Grown ups do this. They interact with each other on a non-threatening level
to enjoy a common interest.

Arny you really need to get out more and see that there is a big wide World
out there full of very interesting people with real lives, ambitions,
opinions and even different views than your own and they seek out like
minded people to converse with.

TT

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Iul, 06:40, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in
messagenews:38dd74lc1p1cb0it4kva4h7jir5k5hbtp3@4ax .com

The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being humiliated
by Mistress Jenn. He's so elated that he sent out e-cards
to all the other milquetoasts in his club. Here's the
picture he used to commemorate the splendiferous event:
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg

One wonders what makes an alleged adult make an idiotic, childish post like
this. *

It is callled humor.
Apparantly that is an alien concept to you.
Humour is the tendency of particular images, stories or situations to
provoke laughter and provide amusement.
We laugh at something that points out another's errors, lack of
intelligence, or unfortunate circumstances; granting a sense of
superiority. Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained.
Author E. B. White once said that "Humor can be dissected as a frog
can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are
discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 11 Iul, 06:40, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in
messagenews:38dd74lc1p1cb0it4kva4h7jir5k5hbtp3@4ax .com

The Krooborg is wallowing in bliss after being
humiliated by Mistress Jenn. He's so elated that he
sent out e-cards to all the other milquetoasts in his
club. Here's the picture he used to commemorate the
splendiferous event:
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...dominatrix.jpg

One wonders what makes an alleged adult make an idiotic,
childish post like this.

It is callled humor.

Right, and it would be highly immature humor for even junior high school
kids.

Apparently that is an alien concept to you.

No, the issue is whether the perps of this spew have any concept of adult
behavior. The jury rendered their verdict about 10 years back and left this
place. For some odd reason, you idiots battle on.

Humour is the tendency of particular images, stories or
situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement.

Right, but humor works best when it is appropriate to its target audience.

Aside from the brain-dead and emotionally-challenged regulars like the
Middiot and ****R, most people happening across a Usenet Audio group like
this purports to be would hope to find humor with a more relevant target
audience.

We laugh at something that points out another's errors,
lack of intelligence, or unfortunate circumstances;
granting a sense of superiority.

Exactly why I post here - entertain myself with lack of intelligence on the
scale of say a Jennifer, which is actually funny, though her naiveté and
self-centered bias is pretty sad for a middle-aged woman. Yeah, but it comes
with her state in life.

But what you guys do is so childish as to be more than a little disturbing.
I suspect that if she had any guts or personal integrity, she'd speak out
about it.

Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained.

Some people will say the darndest things. That doesn't make them true or
relevant. However, again it takes a certain amount of mental ability to
figure that out, or at least believe it if one must read to learn it.

Author E. B. White
once said that "Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but
the thing dies in the process and the innards are
discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."

We're not talking about dissecting humor, we're talking about noticing the
difference between the preferred humor of 5 year olds, versus humor with
adult appeal. I work with teenagers quite a bit, and all of the ones I
know would be grossed-out with the childishness of this thread's OP and the
initial round of responses.

And that Art is what killed RAO and keeps it dead - the odd mixture of
childishness (meant in a bad way) and grotesque behavior such as your
obsession with the circumstances surrounding my son's death.

You're still fighting that battle, hoping to extract some pain by whatever
desperate means jump into your jumbled mind.

Very sad. And why? Oh, you don't have a life. One forgets ugly facts like
that, for a purpose. It's painful to even contemplate.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Iul, 08:46, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



It is callled humor.

Right, and it would be highly *immature humor for even junior high school
kids.



LOL!!!
we are stuck with such an immature subject matter- YOU.

Apparently that is an alien concept to you.

No, the issue is whether the perps of this spew have any concept of adult
behavior. The jury rendered their verdict about 10 years back and left this
place. For some odd reason, you idiots battle on.




I suppose you would categorize your false kp actions as adult
behavior, so sad.

Humour is the tendency of particular images, stories or
situations to provoke laughter and provide amusement.

Right, but humor works best when it is appropriate to its target audience..


the taqrget audience is a bunch of people who who find you revolting.


Aside from the brain-dead and emotionally-challenged regulars like the
Middiot and ****R, most people happening across a Usenet Audio group like
this purports to be would hope to find humor with a more relevant target
audience.


most people 'happening across' would hope to NOT find
people like you.


We laugh at something that points out another's errors,
lack of intelligence, or unfortunate circumstances;
granting a sense of superiority.

Exactly why I post here - entertain myself with lack of intelligence on the
scale of say a Jennifer, which is actually funny, though her naiveté and
self-centered bias is pretty sad for a middle-aged woman. Yeah, but it comes
with her state in life.


I think that you entertain yourself by being demeaned and insulted.
It reinforces your por self esteem.

But *what you guys do is so childish as to be more than a little disturbing.
I suspect that if she had any guts or personal integrity, she'd speak out
about it.

true, she probably wants no part of seeing you in dirty diapers.


Some claim that humour cannot or should not be explained.

Some people will say the darndest things. That doesn't make them true or
relevant. However, again it takes a certain amount of mental ability to
figure that out, or at least believe it if one must read to learn it.


pot meet kettle, in terms of your false kp allegations


Author E. B. White
once said that "Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but
the thing dies in the process and the innards are
discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."

We're not talking about dissecting humor, we're talking about noticing the
difference between the preferred humor of 5 year olds, versus humor with
adult appeal. *I work with teenagers quite a bit, and all of the *ones I
know would be grossed-out with the childishness of this thread's OP and the
initial round of responses.



I hope you haaven't shown them the kp collection you previously owned


And that Art is what killed RAO and keeps it dead - the odd mixture of
childishness (meant in a bad way) and grotesque behavior such as your
obsession with the circumstances surrounding my son's death.



HUH??? I have no interest in the circumstances surrounding your son's
death
I haven't been talking about Nate's tragic death. Look you sick moron,
every time its brought up again, it is YOU bringing it up, like,
right now, for example.

You're still fighting that battle, hoping to extract some pain by whatever
desperate means jump into your jumbled mind.



No, I am selective in the methods I use to extract pain from you.
My favorite method is exhibiting your unabashed religious ypocricy.


Very sad. And why? Oh, you don't have a life. One forgets ugly facts like
that, for a purpose. It's painful to even contemplate.

It is painful to you?
Well, then my methods are finally starting to have some positive
effect.

[BretLudwig]

Arny:

One wonders what makes an alleged adult make an idiotic, childish post
like
this. What is even more amazing is that two other alleged adults chimed
in
with their approval. Perhaps we could find a mental health care
professional explain this occurrence, as it is not all that unusual on
RAO.
Dr, Gindi??? "


Middius is a piece of **** on the sidewalk, but you have to
admit......that was funny as hell.

Lighten up, Arny. Or go home, which, from a superficial reading of the
Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve apostles, he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM) would be the biblical thing to do.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[BretLudwig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus



Paul the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Paul of Tarsus)
Jump to: navigation, search
Saint Paul
St Paul, by El Greco
Apostle to the Gentiles, Martyr
Born no scholarly consensus on date, in Tarsus (Acts 22:3)
Died 64-67 AD, in Rome during Nero's Persecution (EH 3.1)
Venerated in All Christianity
Major shrine Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls
Feast January 25 (The Conversion of Paul)
February 10 (Feast of Saint Paul's Shipwreck in Malta)
June 29 (Feast of Saints Peter and Paul)
November 18 (Feast of the dedication of the basilicas of Saints Peter and
Paul)
Attributes Apostle; Missionary; Martyr; sword
Saints Portal

Saint Paul the apostle, (Hebrew: ש×�ול התרסי€Ž Å*aʾul HaTarsi,
meaning "Saul of Tarsus", Ancient Greek: Σαο�λ Saul and Σαῦλος
Saulos and Î*αῦλος Paulos[1]), the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[2] (ca 5
- 67CE) was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just,[3] the most
notable of early Christian missionaries. Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there
is no indication that Paul, born in Tarsus, ever met Jesus before the
latter's crucifixion.[4] According to Acts, his conversion took place as
he was traveling the road to Damascus, and experienced a vision of the
resurrected Jesus.[5] Paul asserts that he received the Gospel not from
man, but by "the revelation of Jesus Christ".[6]

Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to
Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often
employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.[7][8] As a sign
of authenticity, the writers of these epistles[9] sometimes employ a
passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were
circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the
first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were
eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon of Scripture. They are
believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament."




--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Iul, 10:05, "BretLudwig" wrote:
Arny:

Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve apostles, he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM)


please explain,
I will say in advance that I may be sorry that I ever asked!

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Iul, 10:05, "BretLudwig" wrote:
Arny:

Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve apostles, he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM)


please explain,
I will say in advance that I may be sorry that I ever asked!

The Bible doesn't record a meeting between them.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"BretLudwig" wrote in message
lkaboutaudio.com
Arny:

One wonders what makes an alleged adult make an
idiotic, childish post
like
this. What is even more amazing is that two other
alleged adults chimed in
with their approval. Perhaps we could find a mental
health care professional explain this occurrence, as it
is not all that unusual on RAO.
Dr, Gindi??? "

Middius is a piece of **** on the sidewalk, but you have
to admit......that was funny as hell.

Can't read, can you Bret?

Apparently true, since conversations with you are only one-way.

But just in case something does creep into your rock-like cranium, no it
wasn't funny.

Lighten up, Arny.

Get a clue, Bret.

Or go home, which, from a superficial
reading of the Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't
actually one of the twelve apostles, he no more knew J.C.
than I knew MM) would be the biblical thing to do.

Prove it, Bret.

BTW Bret I'm getting the impression that you think that much of what you
write is funny.

What you wrote reminds me of raising kids. There's a point in their
development where they still don't get humor, but they think they do. They
say all sorts of weird things and wonder why nobody laughs, except perhaps
at them.

All my kids got past this stage and figured humor out, and actually became
pretty effective tellers of humorous tales.

There's a ton of people around here who never seem to have figured out
humor. For all intents and purposes, they are stuck back that that childish
phase where they say weird things, and for the most part people laugh at
them, and not what they say.

Bottom line Bret, for the most part people who visit RAO and laugh at all,
laugh at most of the regulars here, not with them. Most just walk away
shaking their heads, promising never to waste time returning.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Note to the Krooborg:

It's funny because it's about you. The joke would fall flat if the butt were
any other RAO regular.

I'll leave it to you to figure out why. G But I know you'll never get it
because you're utterly devoid of self-awareness.

[BretLudwig]

Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve
apostle=
s, he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM)

please explain,
I will say in advance that I may be sorry that I ever asked!

The Bible doesn't record a meeting between them.



Not even in the books that were excluded form'the official version? "

Frank Zindler, a scholar accepted by liberals and Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
alike, says:
Saint Saul And His Letters

Having eliminated the OT and the gospels from the list of possible
biblical "evidences" of the existence of Jesus, we are left with the
so-called epistles.

At first blush, we might think that these epistles - some of which are by
far the oldest parts of the NT, having been composed at least 30 years
before the oldest gospel - would provide us with the most reliable
information on Jesus. Well, so much for blushes. The oldest letters are
the letters of St. Saul - the man who, after losing his mind, changed his
name to Paul. Before going into details, we must point out right away,
before we forget, that St. Saul's testimony can be ignored quite safely,
if what he tells us is true, namely, that he never met Jesus "in the
flesh," but rather saw him only in a vision he had during what appears to
have been an epileptic seizure. No court of law would accept visions as
evidence, and neither should we.

The reader might object that even if Saul only had hearsay evidence, some
of it might be true. Some of it might tell us some facts about Jesus.
Well, allright. Let's look at the evidence.

According to tradition, 13 of the letters in the NT are the work of St.
Saul. Unfortunately, Bible scholars and computer experts have gone to work
on these letters, and it turns out that only four can be shown to be
substantially by the same author, putatively Saul. g These are the letters
known as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. To these probably we
may add the brief note to Philemon, a slave-owner, Philippians, and 1
Thessalonians. The rest of the so-called Pauline epistles can be shown to
have been written by other and later authors, so we can throw them out
right now and not worry about them.

Saul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans
tried to have him arrested because of his Christian agitation. Since
Aretas is known to have died in the year 40 CE, this means that Saul
became a Christian before that date. So what do we find out about Jesus
from a man who had become a Christian less than ten years after the
alleged crucifixion? Precious little!

Once again, G.A. Wells, in his book The Historical Evidence for Jesus [pp.
22-23], sums things up so succinctly, that I quote him verbatim:

The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events
that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events
were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them
if they had really occurred.

These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to
the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by
calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place
of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman
official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither
John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of
course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul
himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)

These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to
have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the
gospels, he worked so many...

Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never
gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher... on only one
occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical
teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered.

It turns out that Saul's appeal to the authority of Jesus involves
precisely the same error we found in the gospel of Mark. In 1 Cor. 7:10,
Saul says that "not I but the Lord, [say] that the wife should not
separate from the husband." That is, a wife should not seek divorce. If
Jesus had actually said what Saul implies, and what Mark 10:12 claims he
said, his audience would have thought he was nuts - as the Bhagwan says -
or perhaps had suffered a blow to the head. So much for the testimony of
Saul. His Jesus is nothing more than the thinnest hearsay, a legendary
creature which was crucified as a sacrifice, a creature almost totally
lacking a biography."

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html





--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Iul, 11:07, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Iul, 10:05, "BretLudwig" wrote:
Arny:

Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve apostles, he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM)

please explain,
I will say in advance that I may be sorry that I ever asked!

The Bible doesn't record a meeting between them.



Not even in the books that were excluded form'the official version?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

Note to the Krooborg:

It's funny to me and my posse because I made it up. The joke is
meaningless to real human beings who haven't
made silly asses out of themselves by trying to match wits with you.

If you say so, Middiot. ;-)

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Iul, 11:07, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Iul, 10:05, "BretLudwig" wrote:
Arny:

Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve apostles,
he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM)

please explain,
I will say in advance that I may be sorry that I ever asked!

The Bible doesn't record a meeting between them.



Not even in the books that were excluded form'the official version?

Not even! Paul, before his famous 'Road to Damascus' conversion,
persecuted followers of Jesus. Why it's important that he never met
Jesus escapes me.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Iul, 10:05, "BretLudwig" wrote:
Arny:

Apostle Paul (who of course wasn't actually one of the twelve apostles, he
no more knew J.C. than I knew MM)


please explain,
I will say in advance that I may be sorry that I ever asked!

There's no indication in the Bible that Paul ever met Jesus. Paul says
that his conversion to Christianity occurred during his Damascus Road
experience, after Christ's death.