Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / December 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

THE GOLDEN COMPASS HAS NO MORAL COMPASS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
J Baker - 10 Dec 2007 03:34 GMT
J. Matt Barber

     THE GOLDEN COMPASS HAS NO MORAL COMPASS
     With its fantasy world backdrop, sympathetic talking animals and
extravagant battle scenes, the new movie, The Golden Compass, may resemble
C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia. But parents be advised, this film -
which is very intentionally being marketed toward children - is nothing of
the sort.

     The Golden Compass was created with the benefit of a multimillion
dollar budget and big name actors such as Nicole Kidman, Kevin Bacon and Sam
Elliot. It opens December 7, and promises to be action-packed and visually
stunning in the epic tradition of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings.

     But upon closer review, it becomes abundantly clear that both this
movie and the man behind it have a very certain anti-Christian axe to grind.

     Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
avowed atheist and British author Phillip Pullman, The Golden Compass
provides the opening "down with God" salvo in the author's His Dark
Materials trilogy.

     Pullman leaves little question as to his books' central theme. "I don't
profess any religion," he is quoted as saying. "I don't think it's possible
that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty understanding what is
meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality.'"

     Ironically, Pullman's confident pronouncement that there is no God
appears to take an exclusive backseat to his hatred for the very God he
denies. "My books are about killing God," he told The Sydney Morning Herald
in a 2003 interview. And in the trilogy's final offering, The Amber
Spyglass, he does just that - he knocks off the Almighty in a delusional fit
of grandeur.

     Pullman's books drip with moral relativism, that deceptively sweet,
yet fruitless nectar of the secular humanist. His portrayal of God - which
is clearly intended to personify the Christian church - is that of an evil
authoritarian who spitefully stifles human creativity, arbitrarily punishing
mankind for very naturally and properly entertaining base impulses with
unfettered license.

     In a telling and pivotal moment in the series, a former nun named
"Mary Malone," who is a central character, poignantly reflects upon her
realization that God does not exist:

       "There's no one to fret, no one to condemn, no one to bless me for
being a good girl, no one to punish me for being wicked. Heaven was empty. I
didn't know whether God had died, or whether there never had been a God at
all."
     And isn't that what atheism is all about, really? Our fallen desire to
have, "no one to punish [us] for being wicked." If we can convince ourselves
that there is no God, then we escape accountability for what we do, or so we
believe. It's not so much a-theism as it is anti-theism. In fact, atheism is
every bit a religion as any other. But in the church of the non-believer,
the high priest is cloaked beneath the vestment of pseudo-"science" and
parishioners worship at the altar of moral anarchy.

     Still, like so much else in our culture, Pullman's aversion to God
would appear to boil down to sex. Mary Malone explains that her desire for
sex was her primary purpose for abandoning the God in Whom she no longer
believes. "And I thought: am I really going to spend the rest of my life
without ever feeling that again? ...And I took the crucifix from around my
neck and I threw it in the sea. That was it. All over. Gone. ...So, that was
how I stopped being a nun," she recounts.

     Author and attorney David Limbaugh sums up the anti-theist condition
succinctly:

       "It seems the most militant 'anti-theist' these days are either
arrogant scientists or unrestrained licentious types whose main obstacles to
faith are not intellectual, but moral - and that moral obstacle seems
invariably to be sex... sexual perversion, while perhaps not the worst sin,
especially when compared to pride, for example, seems to be the one
galvanizing the modern opponents of God."
     Psalm 14:1 tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

     With The Golden Compass, Phillip Pullman shares his heart with us - a
heart that says, "There is no God." And he clearly wants to influence your
child's heart as well. This movie's creation - or chance materialization,
take your pick - has a specific agenda. It is clearly targeted toward
unsuspecting children with the furtive goal of enlisting the next generation
of "fools."

     But do as he will, the loving God Whom Pullman rejects is bigger than
all that. He's so big, in fact, that He gave his only Son for you, me, and
yes, Phillip Pullman.

     Just the same, I think I'll spend my eleven bucks somewhere else.

Signature

God Bless the Young

LC - 10 Dec 2007 03:54 GMT
Schizophrenic NetNut "J Young" <jyoungvisions@aol.com> nym-shifting as

<plagiarism flushed>

Well, if it's not the racist hate-monger "J Young", all dressed up in a new
nym. The same UseNut that posted these:

"Fortunately America, with the exception of the jews and niggers, are not a
nation of pigs. You must be thinking about the French."
From: "J Baker" <bigf@a.s.com>
Message-ID: <1f4mfa.u2b.17.1@news.alt.net>

"I'm a devout Catholic and would like to see the Muslims start
stoking-up the ovens in Tel Aviv."
Message-ID: <1158543753.097328.291400@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>

"Q: what's the difference between a jew and a pizza? A: pizza doesn't scream
when you put it in the oven.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha  ;-)"
Message-ID: <9aGdnT4p1b90btTeRVn-iw@giganews.com>

How's that schizophrenia working out for you, "J"?
Don Homuth - 10 Dec 2007 06:02 GMT
>      J. Matt Barber
>
>      THE GOLDEN COMPASS HAS NO MORAL COMPASS

It's a Movie -- not a morality play.
Lobby Dosser - 10 Dec 2007 07:46 GMT
>>      J. Matt Barber
>>
>>      THE GOLDEN COMPASS HAS NO MORAL COMPASS
>
> It's a Movie -- not a morality play.

Do a little research once in a while. You'll seem Less Stupid.
Soupy Sales - 10 Dec 2007 14:37 GMT
>>>      J. Matt Barber
>>>
>>>      THE GOLDEN COMPASS HAS NO MORAL COMPASS
>> It's a Movie -- not a morality play.
>
> Do a little research once in a while. You'll seem Less Stupid.

A movie/story isn't required to have a moral compass. A story with a
moral compass is called a fable. A fable is a story, but not all stories
are fables.
messenger - 10 Dec 2007 20:31 GMT
>A fable is a story, but not all stories
>are fables.

I have found that hanging my speedo from my office doorknob dries it
out in a few minutes. I also
just use a small face towel, rather than a large bath or beach towel.
I hang that up too. It takes
longer to dry but is usually ready to use again for the afternoon
session.

martin

--
Martin Smith email: mws@computas.com Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303 1327 Lysaker, Norway
Don Homuth - 10 Dec 2007 17:58 GMT
>>>      J. Matt Barber
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>Do a little research once in a while. You'll seem Less Stupid.

It's still a movie, not a morality play.  Movies are made to make
money -- not to instill a cultural or religious lesson.

Most of the whining about TGC is about the religious preferences of
the author of the original books, from which the screenplay was
adapted.  Which is all Terribly interesting, and utterly meaningless.
lein - 10 Dec 2007 18:17 GMT
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:46:33 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> It's still a movie, not a morality play.  Movies are made to make
> money -- not to instill a cultural or religious lesson.

So why isn't this one meeting it's financial expectations?
Soupy Sales - 10 Dec 2007 18:26 GMT
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:46:33 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> So why isn't this one meeting it's financial expectations?

Whose expectations? It was number one for the weekend, by a wide margin.
So people didn't choose other movies instead. They just didn't go to the
movies at all. That sometimes happens. No doubt, this movie wouldn't
have done as well as it did if it hadn't gotten all the publicity from
the so-called boycott. In fact, I plan to see it now, and only because
the Catholic church called for a boycott.

Did you think the box office wasn't as high as predicted because there
is no moral compass? What does that even mean?
messenger - 10 Dec 2007 20:46 GMT
> What does that even mean?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
Don Homuth - 10 Dec 2007 18:42 GMT
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:46:33 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>So why isn't this one meeting it's financial expectations?

Because the entire movie industry is down, and not meeting its initial
financial expectations.
Lobby Dosser - 11 Dec 2007 02:59 GMT
>>>>      J. Matt Barber
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the author of the original books, from which the screenplay was
> adapted.  Which is all Terribly interesting, and utterly meaningless.

Do a little research once in a while. You'll seem Less Stupid.
Curt - 10 Dec 2007 06:38 GMT
>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by

You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
awards. Diverse awards. And lots of them.

How many awards did, say, the "Left Behind" series earn? Or any of those
second rate "Christian Fiction" books?

Just curious.

Curt
lein - 10 Dec 2007 18:19 GMT
> >       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Just curious.

What in the world does winning awards have to do with anything?
Being an "award winner" is only meaningful to the closed group who
makes up the award.
Soupy Sales - 10 Dec 2007 18:27 GMT
>>>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
>> You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Being an "award winner" is only meaningful to the closed group who
> makes up the award.

What does moral compass mean?
Don Homuth - 10 Dec 2007 18:43 GMT
>What does moral compass mean?

That something doesn't meet with the Xtian Fundy preferences.
Lobby Dosser - 11 Dec 2007 03:01 GMT
>>What does moral compass mean?
>
> That something doesn't meet with the Xtian Fundy preferences.

So, Nixon losing his was meaningless.
Don Homuth - 11 Dec 2007 03:05 GMT
>>>What does moral compass mean?
>>
>> That something doesn't meet with the Xtian Fundy preferences.
>>
>So, Nixon losing his was meaningless.

There are those who maintain even now that he did Not lose his -- that
it was all just part of a Librul Plot to bring him down.
Clave - 11 Dec 2007 03:22 GMT
>>>>What does moral compass mean?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> There are those who maintain even now that he did Not lose his -- that
> it was all just part of a Librul Plot to bring him down.

It's also hard to lose that which one does not possess.

Jim
droll yankee - 11 Dec 2007 06:14 GMT
>It's also hard to lose that which one does not possess.

Your soul for example...
Lobby Dosser - 11 Dec 2007 04:03 GMT
>>>>What does moral compass mean?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> There are those who maintain even now that he did Not lose his -- that
> it was all just part of a Librul Plot to bring him down.

IOW, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Thank you.
Don Homuth - 11 Dec 2007 16:32 GMT
>>>>>What does moral compass mean?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>IOW, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Thank you.

Though the hue and cry has settled down some, you will still find a
bunch of folks out there who claim that RMN was innocent entirely of
Any wrongdoing.

That's a Fact.
lein - 11 Dec 2007 18:08 GMT
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:03:55 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> That's a Fact.

As you would with WJC, that's also a Fact.
Soupy Sales - 11 Dec 2007 07:12 GMT
>>> What does moral compass mean?
>> That something doesn't meet with the Xtian Fundy preferences.
>
> So, Nixon losing his was meaningless.

Nixon didn't lose his. He always was that kind of bastard.
Ockham's Razor - 10 Dec 2007 18:47 GMT
> What does moral compass mean?

It is what keeps one on the true path to salvation.

Signature

Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

                                     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Soupy Sales - 10 Dec 2007 19:00 GMT
>> What does moral compass mean?
>
> It is what keeps one on the true path to salvation.

Salvation from what?
Don Homuth - 10 Dec 2007 19:05 GMT
>>> What does moral compass mean?
>>
>> It is what keeps one on the true path to salvation.
>>
>Salvation from what?

For what, is the more usual query.

"Hello, is this the Salvation Army?"

"Yes, it is."

"Do you Save young girls?"

"Yes, we do."

"Well, would you save me one for this Saturday night?"

Old salvationist joke, but worth retelling, now and again.  I first
heard it from a colleague of my Dad's.
messenger - 10 Dec 2007 20:46 GMT
>Salvation from what?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
messenger - 10 Dec 2007 20:47 GMT
>> What does moral compass mean?
>
>It is what keeps one on the true path to salvation.

No wonder you're lost.
messenger - 10 Dec 2007 20:46 GMT
>What does moral compass mean?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 16:11 GMT
> >> "J Baker" <b...@a.s.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> What does moral compass mean?

"What does moral compass mean?"
http://groups.google.com/group/seattle.politics/msg/dec7ffb233d5e74c?dmode=source

"You can think of me as a woman."
http://groups.google.com/group/dfw.politics/msg/d30991a1a7c2e0f3?dmode=source
Soupy Sales - 14 Dec 2007 17:29 GMT
>>>>>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
>>>> You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "You can think of me as a woman."
> http://groups.google.com/group/dfw.politics/msg/d30991a1a7c2e0f3?dmode=source

But what does moral compass mean?
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 18:31 GMT
> >>>>>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
> >>>> You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> But what does moral compass mean?

Main Entry:   moral compass
Part of Speech:   n
Definition:   anything which serves to guide a person's decisions
based on morals or virtues
Example:   Hopefully, the lawyer has a moral compass.

Webster's New Millennium(tm) Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v
0.9.7)
Copyright (c) 2003-2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

Do you think you could handle looking up, "Search Engine"?
Soupy Sales - 14 Dec 2007 18:35 GMT
>>>>>>>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
>>>>>> You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Do you think you could handle looking up, "Search Engine"?

But the the OP said that a *movie* has no moral compass. Your definition
clearly implies a movie *can't* have a moral compass, so you are
agreeing with me that the OP's post was utter gibberish?
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 19:01 GMT
> >>>>>>>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
> >>>>>> You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> clearly implies a movie *can't* have a moral compass, so you are
> agreeing with me that the OP's post was utter gibberish?

I take it to mean the movie is not a moral guide nor an affirmation of
a sane individual's moral compass and the creators of the book/movie
are relatavists.. Maybe you are more interested in trying to parse
semantics instead of discussing the obvious?
Soupy Sales - 14 Dec 2007 19:09 GMT
>>>>>>>>>       Based on the first of three secular humanist children's books by
>>>>>>>> You left out "award winning". Over and over and over again, this series won
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> are relatavists.. Maybe you are more interested in trying to parse
> semantics instead of discussing the obvious?

No, but moral relativism *is* a moral compass. Clearly. So, we're back
to square one. The OP's post was gibberish.
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 20:15 GMT
>The OP's post was gibberish.

But who is Martjin Smith of Lysaker, Norway?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

And then:

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 19:29 GMT
> so you are
>agreeing with me that the OP's post was utter gibberish?

But who is Martjin Smith of Lysaker, Norway?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

And then:

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 19:28 GMT
>But what does moral compass mean?

But who is Martjin Smith of Lysaker, Norway?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

And then:

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
weelliott@gmail.com - 10 Dec 2007 14:32 GMT
This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.
Gogarty - 10 Dec 2007 17:58 GMT
In article
<d5f05a25-d038-479a-8a56-a951c82e5888@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
weelliott@gmail.com says...

>This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.

Amen!
lein - 10 Dec 2007 18:20 GMT
On Dec 10, 6:32 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.

Jesus would drive a Ford Excursion and not a Prius.
Soupy Sales - 10 Dec 2007 18:29 GMT
> On Dec 10, 6:32 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.
>
> Jesus would drive a Ford Excursion and not a Prius.

Jesus would take the bus or ride a bike or walk. Jesus would seek out
the Dalai Lama for friendship. Jesus would burn down the Vatican, and
Jesus would tell the televangelists to give their money away and stop
extorting money from the people.
messenger - 10 Dec 2007 20:46 GMT
>Jesus would burn down the Vatican

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
Curt - 11 Dec 2007 01:23 GMT
"Soupy Sales" <blacktooth@whitefang.net> wrote in message

> Jesus would take the bus or ride a bike or walk. Jesus would seek out
> the Dalai Lama for friendship. Jesus would burn down the Vatican, and
> Jesus would tell the televangelists to give their money away and stop
> extorting money from the people.

Jesus would burn the televangelists where they stood.

Curt
gatt - 11 Dec 2007 01:53 GMT
> Jesus would burn the televangelists where they stood.

Well, then, he'd get my dollar!

-c
droll yankee - 11 Dec 2007 06:14 GMT
>> Jesus would burn the televangelists where they stood.
>
>Well, then, he'd get my dollar!
>
>-c

Of course, once a hater, always a hater.
droll yankee - 11 Dec 2007 06:14 GMT
>Jesus would burn the televangelists where they stood.

You  a  Christian?
Curt - 11 Dec 2007 07:59 GMT
> >Jesus would burn the televangelists where they stood.
>
> You  a  Christian?

Sure. You?

Curt
Karl - 12 Dec 2007 22:00 GMT
Thank God for atheism!

> > >Jesus would burn the televangelists where they stood.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Curt
Halsey Knox - 12 Dec 2007 22:20 GMT
>Thank God for atheism!

God gave man free will, what he does with it is up to him.
Don Homuth - 12 Dec 2007 22:40 GMT
>>Thank God for atheism!
>
>God gave man free will, what he does with it is up to him.

Find a way to make that statment jibe with a previous one of yours:

...

>The Lord participates in all mans' affairs.

Both of your statements cannot be true simultaneously, can they?

Because If man has Free Will, then The Lowered does Not "participate
in all mans' affairs."

And if The Lowered actually Does "participate in all mans' affairs"
then man does Not have Free Will.

It's an ongoing religious quandary, and which statement is quoted is
entirely dependent on the situation confronting whoever quotes it.

My take on the shooting tragedy is simple enough:

* There was a nutcase -- a previous Xtian and even Home-Schooled --
but a nutcase withal.  (Being an Xtian and Home-Schooled wasn't
insurance against his becoming a nutcase, clearly enough.)

* He went round the bend and shot a bunch of folks.

* The Lowered didn't cause that to happen.

* Second time the Nutcase shot someone, an armed security guard shot
him -- maybe before he killed himself; maybe after.  It doesn't really
matter.

* The Lowered did not steady the guard's hand, any more than He
steadied the killer's hand.

The Lowered was Not a participant in these events at all.  He deserves
Neither credit nor blame.

There -- is that so difficult?  The Lowered is not accountable for the
bad things that happen (that's the Free Will excuse) and is not
responsible for the good things that happen (that's the Direct
Participation respopnse).  The Lowered just isn't part of either.

When His followers start to make a bunch of spurious claims about The
Lowered being either There or Not There at the time, it's just more of
the irrational side that superstitions generally manage to come up
with in far more occasions than they ought.
Halsey Knox - 12 Dec 2007 22:54 GMT
>>>Thank God for atheism!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Both of your statements cannot be true simultaneously, can they?

Absolutely they can!

>Because If man has Free Will, then The Lowered does Not "participate
>in all mans' affairs."

Dead wrong.

If God makes man He also makes the world we live in, the container of
all our affairs.

>And if The Lowered actually Does "participate in all mans' affairs"
>then man does Not have Free Will.

Wrong again, man is given choices by God to make.

>It's an ongoing religious quandary, and which statement is quoted is
>entirely dependent on the situation confronting whoever quotes it.

No, it's a pale attempt to pettifog the ubiquity of the Creator.

>My take on the shooting tragedy is simple enough:
>
>* There was a nutcase -- a previous Xtian and even Home-Schooled --
>but a nutcase withal.  (Being an Xtian and Home-Schooled wasn't
>insurance against his becoming a nutcase, clearly enough.)

Nor would either one be more or less a factor than if he'd been
secular and in a public school like Klebold and Harris.

>* He went round the bend and shot a bunch of folks.
>
>* The Lowered didn't cause that to happen.

No, Satan did - duh.

>* Second time the Nutcase shot someone, an armed security guard shot
>him -- maybe before he killed himself; maybe after.  It doesn't really
>matter.

What matters is that the guard acted well and properly.

>* The Lowered did not steady the guard's hand, any more than He
>steadied the killer's hand.

You can not know that - it is up to the guard to testify.

>The Lowered was Not a participant in these events at all.  He deserves
>Neither credit nor blame.

The guard credits Him, that is quite sufficient.

>There -- is that so difficult?  

No, it's specious pap.

>The Lowered is not accountable for the
>bad things that happen (that's the Free Will excuse) and is not
>responsible for the good things that happen (that's the Direct
>Participation respopnse).  The Lowered just isn't part of either.

The Lord (correct spelling) offers all men a choice.

>When His followers start to make a bunch of spurious claims about The
>Lowered being either There or Not There at the time, it's just more of
>the irrational side that superstitions generally manage to come up
>with in far more occasions than they ought.

The only irrational person here is YOU, with your irrational hatred of
Christians adn the Lord.

And really, having read of your upbringing, it's no srtetch to see why
you are so rife with hostility to Christians.
Don Homuth - 12 Dec 2007 23:06 GMT
>>>>Thank God for atheism!
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>If God makes man He also makes the world we live in, the container of
>all our affairs.

This has nothing to do with some Container, and everything to do with
direct participation in man's affairs.

>>And if The Lowered actually Does "participate in all mans' affairs"
>>then man does Not have Free Will.
>
>Wrong again, man is given choices by God to make.

The choices are prepared by some god?

Heh!  This gets better by the moment.

>>It's an ongoing religious quandary, and which statement is quoted is
>>entirely dependent on the situation confronting whoever quotes it.
>
>No, it's a pale attempt to pettifog the ubiquity of the Creator.

No one's suggesting The Creator (Star Trek episode #?) isn't
ubiquitous.  It's those Omni things -- niscient, present and potent.

It's whether or not, even having those characteristics, He
participates directly in mans' affairs.

>>My take on the shooting tragedy is simple enough:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Nor would either one be more or less a factor than if he'd been
>secular and in a public school like Klebold and Harris.

Precisely, though it does bear mentioning, since Klebold and Harris
were considered products of public schools and therefore morally
suspect.  Turns out others can go nutsoid without being products of
public schools too.

>>* He went round the bend and shot a bunch of folks.
>>
>>* The Lowered didn't cause that to happen.
>
>No, Satan did - duh.

Ah -- Satan.  That would be the what -- anti-Lowered?

Just adds one more to the mix.

>>* Second time the Nutcase shot someone, an armed security guard shot
>>him -- maybe before he killed himself; maybe after.  It doesn't really
>>matter.
>
>What matters is that the guard acted well and properly.

As any reasonably trained person might.  But claiming to have Divine
Intervention is what's beyond the pale.

>>* The Lowered did not steady the guard's hand, any more than He
>>steadied the killer's hand.
>
>You can not know that - it is up to the guard to testify.

Neither can the guard.

>>The Lowered was Not a participant in these events at all.  He deserves
>>Neither credit nor blame.
>
>The guard credits Him, that is quite sufficient.

No -- it's not sufficient.  It's idiosyncratic, but hardly
demonstrative of anything other than she shot straight.

>>There -- is that so difficult?  
>
>No, it's specious pap.

Hardly.  It's a Far better explanation of what happened than brining
in gods and demons intervening in temporal affairs.

>>The Lowered is not accountable for the
>>bad things that happen (that's the Free Will excuse) and is not
>>responsible for the good things that happen (that's the Direct
>>Participation respopnse).  The Lowered just isn't part of either.
>
>The Lord (correct spelling) offers all men a choice.

There are choices, beyond doubt.  That's the nature of The Future --
some things might happen, but the time vector says that only one of
them will.  We have no indication that such choices are arrayed by
some divinity.

>>When His followers start to make a bunch of spurious claims about The
>>Lowered being either There or Not There at the time, it's just more of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>The only irrational person here is YOU, with your irrational hatred of
>Christians adn the Lord.

There's no hatred involved in this discussion -- of either Xtians or
The Lowered.

>And really, having read of your upbringing, it's no srtetch to see why
>you are so rife with hostility to Christians.

So it would be Your claim that someone brought up close to Xtianity
and The Lowered is thereby predisposed to open fire?

Heh!

Not only are you Funny -- you're downright Ridiculous.
Halsey Knox - 12 Dec 2007 23:36 GMT
>>>>>Thank God for atheism!
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>This has nothing to do with some Container, and everything to do with
>direct participation in man's affairs.

A path is provided, we can follow or diverge.

>>>And if The Lowered actually Does "participate in all mans' affairs"
>>>then man does Not have Free Will.
>>
>>Wrong again, man is given choices by God to make.
>
>The choices are prepared by some god?

There is but one God.

>Heh!  This gets better by the moment.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>It's whether or not, even having those characteristics, He
>participates directly in mans' affairs.

To the extent man allows himself to be open to divine guidance.

>>>My take on the shooting tragedy is simple enough:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>suspect.  Turns out others can go nutsoid without being products of
>public schools too.

I think that's a fairly obvious and moot point,

>>>* He went round the bend and shot a bunch of folks.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Ah -- Satan.  That would be the what -- anti-Lowered?

Indeed.

>Just adds one more to the mix.

Nothing new there.

>>>* Second time the Nutcase shot someone, an armed security guard shot
>>>him -- maybe before he killed himself; maybe after.  It doesn't really
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>As any reasonably trained person might.  But claiming to have Divine
>Intervention is what's beyond the pale.

Nope.

That is what she feels, that is what she has testified to.

>>>* The Lowered did not steady the guard's hand, any more than He
>>>steadied the killer's hand.
>>
>>You can not know that - it is up to the guard to testify.
>
>Neither can the guard.

Wrong again.

>>>The Lowered was Not a participant in these events at all.  He deserves
>>>Neither credit nor blame.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>No -- it's not sufficient.  It's idiosyncratic, but hardly
>demonstrative of anything other than she shot straight.

Nope, her testimony is all that matters on this point.

>>>There -- is that so difficult?  
>>
>>No, it's specious pap.
>
>Hardly.  It's a Far better explanation of what happened than brining
>in gods and demons intervening in temporal affairs.

Your personal wounds are showing again.

>>>The Lowered is not accountable for the
>>>bad things that happen (that's the Free Will excuse) and is not
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>them will.  We have no indication that such choices are arrayed by
>some divinity.

For those of faith there is evidence of a divine plan.

>>>When His followers start to make a bunch of spurious claims about The
>>>Lowered being either There or Not There at the time, it's just more of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>There's no hatred involved in this discussion -- of either Xtians or
>The Lowered.

BULLSHIT!

Why do you lie?

>>And really, having read of your upbringing, it's no srtetch to see why
>>you are so rife with hostility to Christians.
>
>So it would be Your claim that someone brought up close to Xtianity
>and The Lowered is thereby predisposed to open fire?

Have you done so?

We know what hapens to your pets anyway...

>Heh!
>
>Not only are you Funny -- you're downright Ridiculous.

And you're tragically damaged goods, really.
Don Homuth - 13 Dec 2007 00:06 GMT
>>>If God makes man He also makes the world we live in, the container of
>>>all our affairs.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>A path is provided, we can follow or diverge.

Apparently not, if Free Will is what's at stake.  According to the
shooter's words, his Free Will was to off a bunch of folks. He started
to do that.  Then The Lowered intervened, and shut his path off.  At
which point, it was his Free Will to shoot himself -- which he did.

Free Will is an evanescant sort of thing -- we have it, Unless The
Lowered decides to intervene, in which case we do not.

>>>>And if The Lowered actually Does "participate in all mans' affairs"
>>>>then man does Not have Free Will.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>There is but one God.

That's the story told by all monotheistic religions, apparently quite
sincerely.

The polytheists, who are every bit as sincere, disagree --but as a
rule quite nicely.

>>No one's suggesting The Creator (Star Trek episode #?) isn't
>>ubiquitous.  It's those Omni things -- niscient, present and potent.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>To the extent man allows himself to be open to divine guidance.

In which case, toss the Free Will thing -- because Divine Guidance is,
by virtue of its being Divine and all, tantamount to a Divine Command.

If we have Free Will, there is no Divine Guidance to discuss.  There's
only an after-the-fact evaluation by a doctrinal committee,
apparently.

>>>What matters is that the guard acted well and properly.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>That is what she feels,

Humans have forever tried to explain away their Feelings by stating it
was a Divine Hand that caused them to act as they did.  Or not.

But we have far too many folks claiming to experience Miracles that
were not.  Some kids get killed in a car accident, but one survives.
That was a Miracle.

If it was, what was the Cause of Death of the others?

>... that is what she has testified to.

Testifying is One thing that Fundies do at the drop of a hat -- and
they drop the hat.  What I liked was how she went trolling for a
husband in the same press conference.

...
>For those of faith there is evidence of a divine plan.

There would sorta Have to be, wouldn't there?  But a Divine Plan
interferes with Free Will to, ntm all that Omni characteristic stuff
out there.

>>>The only irrational person here is YOU, with your irrational hatred of
>>>Christians adn the Lord.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Why do you lie?

I don't.  I don't mind how Xtians believe.  That's essentially
meaningless.  They can believe the Moon is made of green cheese, for
all I care.  It's how they Behave that's important -- and is about the
Only lessons taught by their Holy Tome that are worth discussing.

Otherwise it's all superstitious and supercilious twaddle.

>>>And really, having read of your upbringing, it's no srtetch to see why
>>>you are so rife with hostility to Christians.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Have you done so?

No -- not even when aggravated.

>We know what hapens to your pets anyway...

I'm not into needless suffering.  Nor do I place the responsibility
for what is mine into someone else's hands.

>>Heh!
>>
>>Not only are you Funny -- you're downright Ridiculous.
>
>And you're tragically damaged goods, really.

Just love those evaluations, even though You are commanded not to do
such things.

But you do anyway, doncha?
Halsey Knox - 13 Dec 2007 00:18 GMT
>>>>If God makes man He also makes the world we live in, the container of
>>>>all our affairs.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Apparently not, if Free Will is what's at stake.  

It's not - results are.

>>>>>And if The Lowered actually Does "participate in all mans' affairs"
>>>>>then man does Not have Free Will.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>The polytheists, who are every bit as sincere, disagree --but as a
>rule quite nicely.

f.ck em.

>>>No one's suggesting The Creator (Star Trek episode #?) isn't
>>>ubiquitous.  It's those Omni things -- niscient, present and potent.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>In which case, toss the Free Will thing -- because Divine Guidance is,
>by virtue of its being Divine and all, tantamount to a Divine Command.

Nope.

>If we have Free Will, there is no Divine Guidance to discuss.  There's
>only an after-the-fact evaluation by a doctrinal committee,
>apparently.

More jaded absolutism, open your mind.

>>>>What matters is that the guard acted well and properly.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Humans have forever tried to explain away their Feelings

One's relationship with God is a personal thing.

>>... that is what she has testified to.
>
>Testifying is One thing that Fundies do at the drop of a hat --

Uh...she was interviewed by the police - fool.

>>For those of faith there is evidence of a divine plan.
>
>There would sorta Have to be, wouldn't there?  But a Divine Plan
>interferes with Free Will to, ntm all that Omni characteristic stuff
>out there.

Not really.

>>>>The only irrational person here is YOU, with your irrational hatred of
>>>>Christians adn the Lord.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>I don't.  I don't mind how Xtians believe.

Liar, you denigrate their faith and feelings continually.

>>>>And really, having read of your upbringing, it's no srtetch to see why
>>>>you are so rife with hostility to Christians.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>No -- not even when aggravated.

What about those free fire war crimes you admitted to, eh liar?

>>We know what hapens to your pets anyway...
>
>I'm not into needless suffering.  Nor do I place the responsibility
>for what is mine into someone else's hands.

Lord Homu - King of Nutria, Finisher of Finches...

>>>Heh!
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Just love those evaluations, even though You are commanded not to do
>such things.

No one's perfect.

If you paid attention to my diagnoses you might stand a chance of
healing your wounded inner child.

>But you do anyway, doncha?

I offer my counsel freely.
Don Homuth - 13 Dec 2007 00:30 GMT
Following through and summarizing your apparent Beliefs, we may now
conclude:

* When something Good happens, it's The Lowered's Will.

* But if that same Something Good happens to be bad for Someone Else,
that's also The Lowered's Will.

* When something Bad happens, that's Satan's Will.

* So in a car accident that kills three kids, and one survives, then
the one that survived made it because it was the Lowered's Will.

* The three kids who died died either (a) because The Lowered called
them Home -- which makes it The Lowered's Will, or (b) because Satan
caused the driver to be drunk, inattentive or unskilled, so it was not
The Lowered's Will.

* This evaluation of outcomes will be made at the funeral according to
whoever is preachifying at the time.  Some preachifiers comfort the
flock by saying the kids were Called To His Divine Bosom, while others
who represent a different sort of Vengeful god instead choose to offer
thunder and lightning and place blame on Shaitan instead.  It just
sorta depends on who's pitching that day.

* All of these outcomes, which are Random on their face, go, according
to the Evidence that fundies have, of a Divine Plan -- it was always
supposed to be this way, so we're back to The Lowered's Will again.

We can't have those Divine Plans going wrong can we?

But who can Know if it is, save The Lowered?  And surely, He's
providing no answers.

(I am tempted at this point to segue off into a discussion of
Predestination -- which is yet another Xtian Doctrine that says
there's no use worrying -- Nothing is gonna turn out all right.  We're
either gonna Make it to Heaven or we're not.  The Lowered Nose -- it's
that Plan thing again -- but He's not telling, or even suggesting, or
offering any sort of Divine Intervention on such a matter.  Those He
saves for other more mundane sorts of things.  But I won't.)

Nearly as any rational observer can discern, the Divine Plan is
defined as Whatever Happens is The Lowered's Will.

But it's always after the fact, never before.  And it's a useful
defense as well.

It's good to be a god.  No accountability for Anything, because the
True Believers will never choose (even with Free Will) to hold you to
the promises or their sincere prayers.

But then, there's an Out for that too -- given that the prayers of a
Righteous Man availeth much, according to the HT.  So we are left to
believe that no matter How sincerely we beseech, if we don't get what
we are seeking, we aren't Nearly righteous enough for a god that is
quite remarkably indifferent to such things.

For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, right?

So, if something bad happens, it's Your fault.  And if something Good
doesn't happen, that's Your fault too.

Heh!  Folks seriously believe this, and even give Money to support it.

Go figure!
Halsey Knox - 13 Dec 2007 00:57 GMT
>Following through and summarizing your apparent Beliefs, we may now
>conclude:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>* So in a car accident that kills three kids, and one survives, then
>the one that survived made it because it was the Lowered's Will.

And because sometimes Satan wins a few hands, sadly...
Curt - 13 Dec 2007 07:30 GMT
> There is but one God.

Almost Biblical. And yet, creepy.

Curt
Clave - 13 Dec 2007 07:37 GMT
> There is but one God.

http://gud.us/en/?Clave
Prof. Cal Meacham - 13 Dec 2007 18:36 GMT
Prof. Cal Meacham - 13 Dec 2007 18:36 GMT
>> There is but one God.
>
>Almost Biblical. And yet, creepy.

Yes, that you are.
Soupy Sales - 13 Dec 2007 18:45 GMT
>>> There is but one God.
>> Almost Biblical. And yet, creepy.
>
> Yes, that you are.

Probable spammy alias. PLONK

This message automatically generated.
Prof. Cal Meacham - 13 Dec 2007 22:29 GMT
>This message automatically generated.

Nope, hand made, flown in from Norway!

But who is Martjin Smith of Lysaker, Norway?

"My work here is done. Again.

I just came back to see if any of the Bush supporters from the early
days had seen the light. Amazingly, none of them have. They are still
as unable to reason as ever, which means they will probably remain
ignorant forever.

I have to go, though, because I still have a lot of writing to do. I
am a professional writer now, by the way. It took a long time to get
there, but I did it. All on my own."

And then:

Message-ID: <105cgnradvbr581@corp.supernews.com>

"I'm a computer expert. If they promote me to full Colonel, I'll
volunteer. Actually, I would rather join the Navy this time, so if
they make me a Captain, I'm in."

Message-ID: <3E895BC1.FEC84508@computas.com>

"What with the tv series and my day gig, I'm just spreading myself way
to
thin.  I can no longer spend so much time in seattle.politics.  I hope
to return from time to time, and I fervently hope John Ashcroft's
attempts to destroy seattle.politics fail."

Message-ID: <bsr23d$olv$1@services.kq.no>

"You aren't even shaving for performance; you are
shaving for "the look" which has nothing to do with the sport."

"In my speedo that I wear to go swimming I have my naughty bits, a 357
magnum, and a pair of golf balls.
I do not need any of those "training aids".
I have used a pair of tennis balls -- they are good, but can be a bit
irritating.
Tight belts... I find they are useless... they make my roll stand out,
which is bad.
What is in your speedo?"
Karl - 14 Dec 2007 04:13 GMT
*/To All My Democrat Friends: /*

 Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes
 for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress,
 non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice
 holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious
 persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with
 respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of
 others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions
 at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and
 medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally
 accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the
 calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society
 have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily
 greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western
 Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed,
 color, age, physical or mental ability, religious faith or sexual
 preference of the wishee.

 */To My Republican Friends: /*

 Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 Best and warmest regards,

 Me

> >This message automatically generated.
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> which is bad.
> What is in your speedo?"
Clave - 14 Dec 2007 04:23 GMT
>  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*

If you want people to take that seriously, use the correct word.  Otherwise
you look like a dimwitted trolling a.shole.

HTH,
Jim
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 05:03 GMT
>If you want people to take that seriously, use the correct word.

Clam's got legs.
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 05:11 GMT
>you look like a dimwitted trolling a.shole.

Next time squirt up-current faster clammie, you'll take the bait just
fine!
Karl - 14 Dec 2007 05:12 GMT
Who gives a sh.t?

This whole thread does not have a damn thing in it about Mercedes.

Not sure why some asswipe crossposted it to the Mercedes newsgroup.....

> >  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> HTH,
> Jim
Clave - 14 Dec 2007 05:21 GMT
> Who gives a sh.t?

Do I have to remind you that you're the dimwitted trolling a.shole who gave
enough of a sh.t to try to make people to think you had "Democrat Friends?"

Jim

> This whole thread does not have a damn thing in it about Mercedes.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> HTH,
>> Jim
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 05:26 GMT
>Do I have to remind you that you're the dimwitted trolling a.shole

Do we need to dig for clams again?
Karl - 14 Dec 2007 06:28 GMT
I was trying to bring humor to a bunch of dickheads. I see I have guessed
you correctly: Dickhead.

> > Who gives a sh.t?
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> >> HTH,
> >> Jim
Clave - 14 Dec 2007 07:03 GMT
>I was trying to bring humor to a bunch of dickheads. I see I have guessed
> you correctly: Dickhead.

Well, for future reference, Mr. Literacy, "Democrat" is a noun.
"Democratic"
is the adjective you couldn't find to describe your imaginary "friends".

Not that anyone expected you to know the difference between a noun and an
adjective, but getting all 13-year-old-girl pissy about getting called on it
pretty much tells everyone exacly who you are.

Christ, you right-wingnuts really are some whiny stupid motherf..kers.

Jim

>> > Who gives a sh.t?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>> >> HTH,
>> >> Jim
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 16:50 GMT
On Dec 13, 11:03 pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com>
wrote:

> >I was trying to bring humor to a bunch of dickheads. I see I have guessed
> > you correctly: Dickhead.
>
> Well, for future reference, Mr. Literacy, "Democrat" is a noun.

"Democrat" also means "an advocate for democracy so obviously he
wasn't talking about what you thought he was talking about.
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 19:02 GMT
>Well, for future reference, Mr. Literacy, "Democrat" is a noun.

Clam squirt  #455,667.
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 16:45 GMT
> I was trying to bring humor to a bunch of dickheads. I see I have guessed
> you correctly: Dickhead.

He's right, Democrats don't have friends because this is the way they
behave. The closest thing they have to friends are social workers and
parole officers.

> > > Who gives a sh.t?
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lobby Dosser - 14 Dec 2007 06:36 GMT
> Who gives a sh.t?
>
> This whole thread does not have a damn thing in it about Mercedes.
>
> Not sure why some asswipe crossposted it to the Mercedes newsgroup.....

You mean the Mercedes NG is not about Mercedes Mercado?!
Curt - 14 Dec 2007 07:43 GMT
> >  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*
>
> If you want people to take that seriously, use the correct word.  Otherwise
> you look like a dimwitted trolling a.shole.

And one that doesn't know how to create a new thread..

Curt
Clave - 14 Dec 2007 08:14 GMT
>> >  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*
>>
>> If you want people to take that seriously, use the correct word.
>> Otherwise you look like a dimwitted trolling a.shole.
>
> And one that doesn't know how to create a new thread..

He sucks at that too.

Jim
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 19:02 GMT
>He sucks at that too.

Well put it back in your shell then clammie, sheesh!
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 16:40 GMT
On Dec 13, 8:23 pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com>
wrote:

> >  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*
>
> If you want people to take that seriously, use the correct word.  Otherwise
> you look like a dimwitted trolling a.shole.

That's a conundrum... Christmas Spirit v. Accuracy in Reporting:

*/To All Democrat Jerks: /*
Jim Lovejoy - 18 Dec 2007 03:57 GMT
>>  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*
>
> If you want people to take that seriously, use the correct word.
> Otherwise you look like a dimwitted trolling a.shole.

I applaud 'Karl' for using 'Democrat'.

True, he looks like a dimwitted trolling a.shole, but I think that's a
feature, not a bug.  Think of it as Truth in Advertising.
Clave - 18 Dec 2007 04:16 GMT
>>>  */To All My Democrat Friends: /*
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> True, he looks like a dimwitted trolling a.shole, but I think that's a
> feature, not a bug.  Think of it as Truth in Advertising.

It does kind of shorthand things.

Jim
Prof. Cal Meacham - 14 Dec 2007 05:01 GMT
>  */To My Republican Friends: /*

How many do you have?
Curt - 13 Dec 2007 07:24 GMT
> Thank God for atheism!

If there was no god I would have to invent him.

Curt
Prof. Cal Meacham - 13 Dec 2007 18:36 GMT
>If there was no god I would have to invent him.

Sorry, that's Homu's job.
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 16:11 GMT
> > On Dec 10, 6:32 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Jesus would tell the televangelists to give their money away and stop
> extorting money from the people.

What would Jesus tell you?
Soupy Sales - 14 Dec 2007 17:30 GMT
>>> On Dec 10, 6:32 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> What would Jesus tell you?

About what?
Yer Pal Al - 14 Dec 2007 18:31 GMT
> >>> On Dec 10, 6:32 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> This is a forum about cars-not a place to put your religious rants.
[quoted text