 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / November 2007Pagans are not too bright. Let's pray for their lost souls.
From: http://library.thinkquest.org/28111/ "Pagans held no belief in heaven and hell as Christians do, rather they believed in reincarnation. They believed that when the body could be re-incarnated in another form. There are many varying beliefs relating to re-incarnation, however the theme remains the same in most forms of Paganism." This is what Pagans believed thousands of years ago - and some still believe this unproven hogwash today. Why do people believe things that are totally unproven? Maybe because they're stupid? If there was such a thing as reincarnation surely it would be easy enough to prove it conclusively yet it's never been proven. Shad O'Shay If Jesus said it, then that settles it for me. ANd...he said there is no reincarnation . He indicated once this life is over, thats IT !... no more chances at getting it right. We go to one of two places : Eternal togetherness with God or Eternal distance from God. No recyling . Why trust in what Jesus said ? Because he fulfilled over 300 specific old testament prophecies written at least 600 years before he was born, he lived a sinless life, he performed real miracles, and he came back to life from the dead. If someone does something more or better than that., then, follow him and not Jesus. > If Jesus said it, then that settles it for me. ANd...he said there is > no reincarnation . He indicated once this life is over, thats IT !... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > life from the dead. If someone does something more or better than > that., then, follow him and not Jesus. And I feel sorry for Dr.H(cursewords). She seems to be a nice person. She has a bit of a short fuse but otherwise she's not malicious or devious like that dingle berry arse Ken. I'd like to see her have a chance to get away from her Satanic leanings. But, she's too caught up in all this magic and witchcraft rubbish. I'm hoping she lives a long life and maybe as she gets elderly she might get some more sense especially when she knows she doesn't have much longer in this mortal world. How strong will be her survival instincts then? She's got a good brain obviously but she's been led astray somehow. When you know you got only a few years of life left who are you gonna believe? Jesus or some magic crap that's just Satan's works? We're planting the seed of her salvation with these posts. God works in mysterious ways. Shad O'Shay >> If Jesus said it, then that settles it for me. ANd...he said there >> is no reincarnation . He indicated once this life is over, thats IT [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the seed of her salvation with these posts. God works in mysterious > ways. I've just read your posts during a commercial break; I'm watching Most Haunted Live which is much more interesting. I'll answer when it finishes in 5 mins. >>> If Jesus said it, then that settles it for me. ANd...he said there >>> is no reincarnation . He indicated once this life is over, thats IT [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Haunted Live which is much more interesting. I'll answer when it > finishes in 5 mins. Make that an hour and 5 mins; I forgot to put the clock back. >> If Jesus said it, then that settles it for me. ANd...he said there >> is no reincarnation . He indicated once this life is over, thats IT [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> and he came back to life from the dead. If someone does something >> more or better than that., then, follow him and not Jesus. Why do you assume that this better character has to be a male? So you reckon Jesus didn't believe in reincarnation eh? I suggest that you read *all* the Gospels; not just the regular four. You have a book. : The book is a rather long book. It starts by setting the scene by depicting the early history of a society. While doing this a number of the central characters make bold predictions about a character who is the "star of the show". Two-thirds of the way through the book this "star" appears in the storyline, and everything that was prophesied is fulfilled in him. He saves the planet and gives his life doing so. He lives on...The End The name of the book is "The Matrix"; a work of fiction. > And I feel sorry for Dr.H(cursewords). What is wrong with Halonfires? Where's the alleged profanity in that? Dr Halonfires is an anagram of my name. > She seems to be a nice person. :) > She has a bit of a short fuse but otherwise she's not malicious or > devious like that dingle berry arse Ken. You mean he's a scientist who doesn't suffer fools lightly; whereas you're neither a scientist nor anything even slightly similar - Yet you seem to think that you know it all a lot better than he or anyone else does. > I'd like to see her have a > chance to get away from her Satanic leanings. I don't have any "Satanic leanings". Satan is a Christian figure; which makes Christians more "Satanic" than me as they believe in Satan. > But, she's too caught > up in all this magic and witchcraft rubbish. Ok so I tripped on a net used as a prop in a fertility ritual in Basingstoke in 2004; but I untangled myself pretty quickly. > I'm hoping she lives a > long life and maybe as she gets elderly she might get some more sense > especially when she knows she doesn't have much longer in this mortal > world. I'll see you in transit in the Astral one day when you have access to your combined experiences. : We'll have a laugh at this if nothing else > How strong will be her survival instincts then? She's got a > good brain obviously :) Hmmm; seeking a route to mind control by flattery eh? > but she's been led astray somehow. When you know > you got only a few years of life left who are you gonna believe? > Jesus or some magic crap that's just Satan's works? Neither; I'll stick to the facts. > We're planting > the seed of her salvation with these posts. God works in mysterious > ways. You can take your seed somewhere else. <snip> So you reckon Jesus didn't believe in reincarnation eh? I suggest that you > read *all* the Gospels; not just the regular four. Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. Everybody who ever lived will live again and everybody will be judged. Those not worthy of everlasting life in heaven will be put down in Hell to suffer for a time and then will end. Those judged worthy (those who believe in Jesus and attempted to live by Jesus' dictates according to God's opinion) will be granted eternal life. <snip> > What is wrong with Halonfires? Where's the alleged profanity in that? Dr > Halonfires is an anagram of my name. Thanks for the explanation but now that I know what it's supposed to mean I've lost a little respect for you. Are you so dumb that you don't know halon puts out fires. Halon doesn't burn. Duh! You can't have a halon fire - impossible. Even your pretend witchcraft can't make halon burn. <snip> >> We're planting >> the seed of her salvation with these posts. God works in mysterious >> ways. > > You can take your seed somewhere else. I've planted seed all over the place. So don't you worry yourself over it, girlie. Born again virgin, indeed. Ha ha ha! You're either a virgin or you're not. You can't become a virgin again even if you have an operation that restores the hymen. If you ever had a w.nk in there then you're forever not a virgin. Shad O'Shay > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > worthy (those who believe in Jesus and attempted to live by Jesus' > dictates according to God's opinion) will be granted eternal life. In your opinion. >> What is wrong with Halonfires? Where's the alleged profanity in >> that? Dr Halonfires is an anagram of my name. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have a halon fire - impossible. Even your pretend witchcraft can't > make halon burn. Once again the humour of the irony is totally lost on you. : Give me some credit for intelligence rather than proving yourself an utter buffoon. > <snip> >>> We're planting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have an operation that restores the hymen. If you ever had a w.nk in > there then you're forever not a virgin. In your opinion. 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. ' REPLY: Not 'reincarnated' Shad ; you mean Resurrected . (a Believers Soul which is in heaven goes back into the Body they once had but with great transformation which makes it suitable for eternity without pain, tears, etc..). But for the unregenerate (non believers), their Soul will be reunited with their Body ... again tranformed only their Body will be able to feel pain and regret lasting for eternity. > 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. ' > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tranformed only their Body will be able to feel pain and regret > lasting for eternity. You mean you lot will be all unfeeling zombies like you while the rest of us will continue to have feelings? This load of baloney gets more ridiculous on a daily basis the more you rabbit on about it. Note two "Christians" can't even agree on a single aspect of their belief structure. Now I've said that will they argue or will one concede to the other to avoid a public civil dispute? Watch this space to see more on the Fundy Civil War - Live here on Usenet. >> 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. ' >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You mean you lot will be all unfeeling zombies like you while the rest of > us will continue to have feelings? What a small mind you have there, girlie! You make such ignorant leaps of non-reason. It's sad. > This load of baloney gets more ridiculous on a daily basis the more you > rabbit on about it. > > Note two "Christians" can't even agree on a single aspect of their belief > structure. Details are often in dispute. Debate is encouraged because that's how we learn and come to a consensus. Witness this debate, you unbeliever, and notice how it's civil and reasoned and not some farcical parody like a Pagan casting of spells and other such childish shows of animosity. > Now I've said that will they argue or will one concede to the other to > avoid a public civil dispute? Watch this space to see more on the Fundy > Civil War - Live here on Usenet. On the contrary. Watch and learn civilized, rational behavior. You could certainly learn from it, you with the closed mind. Shad O'Shay 'Note two "Christians" can't even agree on a single aspect of their belief structure.' REPLY: Rest assured that Shad and I DO believe in the essentials of the Christian Faith ; charity is extended on other issues and any differences there would not seperate us . > 'Note two "Christians" can't even agree on a single aspect of their > belief structure.' > > REPLY: Rest assured that Shad and I DO believe in the essentials of > the Christian Faith ; charity is extended on other issues and any > differences there would not seperate us . ATTABOY! Here, I found a good link that explains how rejected souls and Lucifer himself don't live forever suffering in hell. It explains the eternal fire and how it can be and is transient in spite of it's name. http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/immortal.html You should read it, too, Dr.H. Increase your biased and warped understanding of reality. Note how it's even a UK based site, good Dr. Maybe you won't reject it outright so fast. At least it proves SOME Brits have brains. Shad O'Shay Shad O'Shay >> 'Note two "Christians" can't even agree on a single aspect of their >> belief structure.' [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Dr. Maybe you won't reject it outright so fast. At least it proves > SOME Brits have brains...Unlike most Yanks. OK for a laugh then when I get time to waste. It's *YOUR* negative, destructive, control-by-terror belief remember. I'll read it and feel sorry for you. >>> 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment >>> time. ' REPLY: Not 'reincarnated' Shad ; you mean Resurrected . (a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > On the contrary. Watch and learn civilized, rational behavior. You > could certainly learn from it, you with the closed mind. LOL *I* have a closed mind? PKB! > 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. ' > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will be reunited with their Body ... again tranformed only their Body > will be able to feel pain and regret lasting for eternity. I have to disagree with you here. I've read the Bible and I've got so I understand it pretty well. Have you heard of Sheol? It's a holding tank. Everybody's who dies their soul goes there. There a soul has no consciousness or sense of time. It's total oblivion to the soul. You die.Your soul goes to this holding tank until Resurrection Day. To somebody who dies no time apparently passes though it be a billion years. It seems to the dead that they die and go directly to Judgment Day. On that day everybody's soul is resurrected into their body. They come to life again and are mortal. You are technically correct about reincarnation. It's not really reincarnation in the sense of it being a different body but that's all. They all died and they all are living again albeit in the same body. Reincarnation literally means to be flesh again. It doesn't necessary mean in another flesh like these heathen Pagans like to believe. So, in that sense, Resurrection is a reincarnation process but more because it's a means to an end and not an end in itself. These days people tell their children when a loved one dies that they are up in heaven with God. Simply not so! Everybody needs to wait until Judgment Day and they need to be resurrected and chosen by God in order to get to Heaven. Those not chosen for Heaven are for Hell. More literally, those for Hell are chosen first. The 'chaff' is discarded to Hell. But in Hell these losers don't live forever suffering for all eternity. The Bible is clear that Lucifer and Hell will come to an end after a finite length of time. The length of time is not given however so only God knows it. This stands to reason for ONLY those who believe in Jesus Christ and/or are chosen by God (the WHEAT) are gifted by Him with eternal life. Those rejected souls in Hell can't have eternal life by definition. This is how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Shad O'Shay 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. ' REPLY: Not 'reincarnated' Shad ; you mean Resurrected . (a Believers Soul which is in heaven goes back into the Body they once had but with great transformation which makes it suitable for eternity without pain, tears, etc..). But for the unregenerate (non believers), their Soul will be reunited with their Body ... again tranformed only their Body will be able to feel pain and regret lasting for eternity. "I have to d isagree with you here. I've read the Bible and I've got so I understand it pretty well." REPLY: Bro Shad, If you read 1 Cor. 15 regarding the Rapture, it will lend some insight. The Bible teaches Ressurection of the Dead and not reincarnation which eastern religions do. What i described above , occurs at a certain time in history...and not immediately upon death to this life. 'Have you heard of Sheol? It's a holding tank. Everybody's who dies their soul goes there. There a soul has no consciousness or sense of time. It's total oblivion to the soul. You die.Your soul goes to this holding tank until Resurrection Day. To somebody who dies no time apparently passes though it be a billion years.' REPLY: The Bible teaches that the Unregenerate / Unbeleivers Soul go to Sheol upon death to this life while waiting for their ressurected body and final Great White Throne Judgement which is held at the end of time. A Believers Soul after this life, goes immediately to be with Christ in Heaven (" Absent from the Body, at home with the Lord" says the Bible). At the time of the Rapture, the Believers Souls , which are with Christ in Heaven, are reunited with their bodys which died on earth ... and they are caught up in the air (raptured and greatly transformed) when Christ comes in the Clouds . The Unbeleivers still remain in waiting till the end of time for final judgement. It is not clear exactly when Believers are judged (called The Judgement Seat of Christ for rewards) according to what they did with their time, talents, and treasures that they were afforded during thier earthly life after being saved -- it could be right after they die to this life, or, it could be at some later date. I suspect its after the Rapture as crowns are given to Believers for their faithful service and a Body is required for a Crown. However, the Bible says that we wont actually wear these crowns, rather...we will place them at the feet of Jesus who really should recieve them as Lord. 'You are technically correct about reincarnation. It's not really reincarnation in the sense of it being a different body but that's all. They all died and they all are living again albeit in the same body. Reincarnation literally means to be flesh again. It doesn't necessary mean in another flesh like these heathen Pagans like to believe. So, in that sense, Resurrection is a reincarnation process but more because it's a means to an end and not an end in itself.' REPLY: The Pagan usage of reincarnation refers to the constant 'recycling' into either a higher or lower form of life for a subsequent phase of existence ; if your karma was bad then you could come back as a farm animal ; if your Karma was good, then , you could be a brilliant Philosopher or such in a future life. Christ taught that the Soul you have will always be THAT Soul and the Body you have , you will have for eternity...except... it will be made imperishable and able to withstand eternity . There is no reincarnation --- its just a deceptive lie of Satan to give some hope to those who think they can make themselves better ., without even addressing the sin issue which Christ died for. People like to think they can work toward making themselves more suitable and better...but in reality...what Christ offers is based on what HE alone has accomplished , and not on personal meritorious good works in life. Although, after we are saved, that new life in him should be accompanied by much service to him and others due to him saving us. 'These days people tell their children when a loved one dies that they are up in heaven with God.' REPLY: They are if they died IN Christ. That is, if they truly and sincerely believed that Christ and the cross is Gods global salvation plan and they have recieved Christ into thier lives (appropriation), having repented of their sin, trusted that his death is totally sufficient for payment, and have now made CHRIST the Lord of their lives instead of Selfism. Believers who die are safe with the Lord Jesus, is what the Bible teaches. Their Souls ... the 'real' inner person, are with Christ awaiting their ressurected bodys as promised. You can get some good material on this thru www.rbc.org . Free booklets on this exact subject as well as other issues. Dave > 'Jesus said everyone will be reincarnated ONE time at judgment time. ' > REPLY: Not 'reincarnated' Shad ; you mean Resurrected . (a Believers [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > occurs at a certain time in history...and not immediately upon death to > this life. Agreed! > 'Have you heard of Sheol? It's a holding tank. Everybody's who dies > their soul goes there. There a soul has no consciousness or sense of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > time. A Believers Soul after this life, goes immediately to be with > Christ in Heaven Disagreed! Read John Chapter 3, please. He said, "And no man has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13). It's abundantly clear that only Jesus of all men has been to heaven. This means when people die they do not go to heaven. They go into a holding tank until judgement day. Then they live on Earth for a thousand years and then they go to heaven. > (" Absent from the Body, at home with the Lord" says > the Bible). At the time of the Rapture, the Believers Souls , which > are with Christ in Heaven, are reunited with their bodys which died on > earth ... and they are caught up in the air (raptured and greatly > transformed) when Christ comes in the Clouds . Disagreed! For the same reason stated in John above. No human soul has been in heaven but Jesus' soul. > The Unbeleivers still > remain in waiting till the end of time for final judgement. It is not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > these crowns, rather...we will place them at the feet of Jesus who > really should recieve them as Lord. No man's sould has yet been in heaven. Again it states this in John. Therefore both believers and non believers go into a holding tank (Sheol) until judgment day. > 'You are technically correct about reincarnation. It's not really > reincarnation in the sense of it being a different body but that's all. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > should be accompanied by much service to him and others due to him > saving us. Agreed totally. > 'These days people tell their children when a loved one dies that they > are up in heaven with God.' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Jesus, is what the Bible teaches. Their Souls ... the 'real' inner > person, are with Christ awaiting their ressurected bodys as promised. Sorry, but read John above one more time. What you say here is a nice fairy tale but not upheld by the Bible. > You can get some good material on this thru www.rbc.org . Free > booklets on this exact subject as well as other issues. > > Dave I'll check it out but if it supports some of what you state above then perhaps it is slanted or biased?? Shad O'Shay <snip> > REPLY: The Pagan usage of reincarnation refers to the constant > 'recycling' into either a higher or lower form of life for a subsequent > phase of existence ; if your karma was bad then you could come back as > a farm animal ; if your Karma was good, then , you could be a brilliant > Philosopher or such in a future life. <snip> If this is true then Dr.H must have been really a failure in her past life. Got sent back as a woman! Ha ha ha! A lower form of human life. A self-proclaimed witch. A helpmate who won't accept her place in life. I guess her next reincarnation she will be a worm or something crawly like that - maybe a snake. She's on the road to evil and no mistake. Shad O'Shay > <snip> >> REPLY: The Pagan usage of reincarnation refers to the constant [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If this is true then Dr.H must have been really a failure in her past > life. Got sent back as a woman! Being a woman is something to be proud of and something that brings me great happiness. > Ha ha ha! A lower form of human life. > A self-proclaimed witch. A helpmate who won't accept her place in > life. I guess her next reincarnation she will be a worm or something > crawly like that - maybe a snake. She's on the road to evil and no > mistake. You evil venomous cheauvanistic pig! 'Call yourself a Christian? Morelike a homosexual woman-hater. How utterly despicable and anti-social. Perhaps you and Dave should get married since you quite obviously, along with Dimwit, prefer men and detest women so much. >> <snip> >>> REPLY: The Pagan usage of reincarnation refers to the constant [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Perhaps you and Dave should get married since you quite obviously, along > with Dimwit, prefer men and detest women so much. I love women. I don't like women like you who try to act like men. Who go around talking about their virginity or lack thereof. Who call every man whose not interested in them a homo. Who don't know their place. God created women to be helpmates for men. A helpmate is never an equal or a better. Just because I think Biblical order is true and right doesn't mean I hate women. Women have their place. As long as women realize it then I love them because they are desirable when they know how to act like women. Perhaps that's your problem? You never acted like a woman so any man who might have been interested got disgusted and left for greener pastures. You tried to be the boss like you do here. That'll attract no real men. Only wimps who want a mother. Is that why you're a spinster? Be honest. Shad O'Shay >>> <snip> >>>> REPLY: The Pagan usage of reincarnation refers to the constant [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I love women. I don't like women like you who try to act like men. I don't try to act like men at all. : I have a rational logical brain and I use it as it is designed to be used. The fact that I am a woman has no bearing on the fact that I have a good brain, nor vice-versa; and thus should not be affected by one another. You imply by your rhetoric that because I am a woman I am not entitled to have an opinion or to be involved in intellectual conversaation or academia - but shouls shut up and remain subserviant to dominative males such as yourself with too much testosterone, an ego the size of a small planet, and a brain the size of a small pea. The fact that this goes against your cheauvanistic beliefs is neither here nor there in my opinion. Your sexist stance is akin to a Taliban-style regime, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Is it any wonder that I vigorously oppose such a male-led dominative oppressive religion such as yours? I'm a bloody near-genius and a woman - Which contradicts your entire world view and makes you extremely uncomfortable. : Tough; live with it and get used to it. : Women aren't all timid little automated nosh-and-nookie machines at the behest of egomaniac males such as yourself. > Who go around talking about their virginity or lack thereof. Too bad; like it or not I'm a born-again virgin. > Who call > every man whose not interested in them a homo. No I call women-hating ego-inflated men who prefer the company of other men and lie about their true nature gay. > Who don't know their > place. God created women to be helpmates for men. In your opinion. I'm not a member of your religion. > A helpmate is never > an equal or a better. Just because I think Biblical order is true and > right doesn't mean I hate women. Women have their place. As long as > women realize it then I love them because they are desirable when > they know how to act like women. Subservient to you in other words. - You really don't want to hear my next comment so I'll spare you the pleasure. > Perhaps that's your problem? You never acted like a woman so any man > who might have been interested got disgusted and left for greener > pastures. Good; I'm not interested in control-freaks, male or female. : I am my own person. 'Don't like it? 'Tough. > You tried to be the boss like you do here. That'll attract > no real men. Only wimps who want a mother. Is that why you're a > spinster? Be honest. I love being who and what I am. : I am Sharron; a real person in love with life itself. 'Been there, 'done it. - 'Fun at the time; now grown up and moved on to matters of the mind and soul. You're trying to make me see life from a male perspective perhaps? - Don't waste your time. *YOU* carry on being you; a younger inexperienced male with an over-inflated ego. I'm not going to waste my time discussing my personal life to boost your weird egomania. -Believe what you want to believe; after all you have your version and I have the truth. 'You imply by your rhetoric that because I am a woman I am not entitled to have an opinion or to be involved in intellectual conversaation or academia - but shouls shut up and remain subserviant to dominative males such as yourself with too much testosterone, an ego the size of a small planet, and a brain the size of a small pea. The fact that this goes against your cheauvanistic beliefs is neither here nor there in my opinion. Your sexist stance is akin to a Taliban-style regime, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Is it any wonder that I vigorously oppose such a male-led dominative oppressive religion such as yours? I'm a bloody near-genius and a woman - ' REPLY: You have claimed to be a Feminist in previous dialogues Sharron. Is this statement correct ? I think this is the thing which Shad finds quite disturbing . Feminism has done alot to harm women under the guise of 'wanting equality' . > 'You imply by your rhetoric that because I am a woman I am not > entitled to have an opinion or to be involved in intellectual [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Shad finds quite disturbing . Feminism has done alot to harm women > under the guise of 'wanting equality' . If it were not for feminism women would still be treated as second-class citizens, have no rights, and be dominated by weird sex-and-power-mad men. >> 'You imply by your rhetoric that because I am a woman I am not >> entitled to have an opinion or to be involved in intellectual [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If it were not for feminism women would still be treated as second-class > citizens, have no rights, and be dominated by weird sex-and-power-mad men. You just don't get it, girlie! There's a certain order to things that has to be kept so things run smoothly. You see it throughout nature. The lioness doesn't challenge the lion king. The lion king respects the lioness because she knows how to act. The same can be said of any and all animals. They have a place and a role and they know the place and the role and if they step out of it they suffer the consequences. If today's uppity, gone-astray women started acting like women again they WOULD automatically be respected and they wouldn't have to resort to political movements like feminism to get what they would get without it, provided they didn't step out of their role as women. The Bible says women were created as helpmates. That means women are NOT equal to men. The body can have only one head. Women's rightful role is to help men. Men are the decision makers and women can help them with decisions but only one person can make a decision and it's the man's job to do it. When women realize this fact and start acting like women and start helping men, and their man in particular, they automatically are respected and treated fairly and with reverence. It's only the women who step out of line that end up being disrespected and abused. If you're a liability you'll be treated like one. If you're an asset you'll be treated like one. Pretty simple stuff. A woman without a man is nothing. She has absolutely no reason to exist. This is the way it was meant to be. A helpmate without a man to help has no role to play. Just like a nurse without a patient isn't really a nurse. Or a cyclist without a bicycle to race is no cyclist. A woman assuming the role of a man like you do is hardly a woman. This is undoubted the source of your malcontent - you're playing a role you can't possible succeed at. Try being a woman. It would do wonders for your attitude. As a man is subservient to the Lord so is a woman supposed to be subservient to a man. That's the plain facts, mam! Shad O'Shay >>> 'You imply by your rhetoric that because I am a woman I am not >>> entitled to have an opinion or to be involved in intellectual [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > know the place and the role and if they step out of it they suffer > the consequences. Guess what? Life isn't a Disney film. I'm a female not a feline. > If today's uppity, gone-astray women started acting like women again > they WOULD automatically be respected and they wouldn't have to > resort to political movements like feminism to get what they would > get without it, provided they didn't step out of their role as women. We're not you men's nosh-and-nookie slaves whatever you assume. > The Bible says women were created as helpmates. I don't give two sh.ts. - I'm not a Christian and I don't follow or worship the Bible. : The Bible says a lot of things that aren't true; and that's just one of them. > That means women are > NOT equal to men. Just because your Bible says something doesn't automatically make it a fact. The Bible says that earth is the centre of the universe but it's not. > The body can have only one head. Women's rightful > role is to help men. Men are the decision makers and women can help > them with decisions but only one person can make a decision and it's > the man's job to do it. When women realize this fact and start acting > like women and start helping men, and their man in particular, they > automatically are respected and treated fairly and with reverence. In a relationship it's a totally different kettle of fish; but you must remember that I'm not in a relationship; with you or with anyone else - and before you say anything I'm quite happy with that. > It's only the women who step out of line that end up being > disrespected and abused. So all the abuse women suffer at the hands of men is their own fault yeah? It's not the man's fault because...? > If you're a liability you'll be treated like > one. If you're an asset you'll be treated like one. Pretty simple > stuff. If you're an a.shole, which you clearly are, you'll get treated like an a.shole. > A woman without a man is nothing. Self-flattery will get you nowhere you pompous a.s. >She has absolutely no reason to > exist. I get an uneasy feeling about you. - Are you a psychopath? > This is the way it was meant to be. A helpmate without a man > to help has no role to play. Just like a nurse without a patient > isn't really a nurse. Or a cyclist without a bicycle to race is no > cyclist. But an a.shole without an intellect is still an a.shole, and a dangerous psychopath without a weapon is still a dangerous psychopath. > A woman assuming the role of a man like you do is hardly a > woman. ...More drivel... > This is undoubted the source of your malcontent What malcontent? I'm as happy as the day is long. Why are you inventing problems psycho? > - you're > playing a role you can't possible succeed at. zzzz > Try being a woman. I would hate to be a man; especially if you're an example of a man. Try anal sex with a revolving chainsaw. > It would do wonders for your attitude. As a man is > subservient to the Lord so is a woman supposed to be subservient to a > man. That's the plain facts, mam! That's your opinion; which you're welcome to. Keep it. The problem of Feminism has become such an enormous problem in american society, that even this Guys Website is totally devoted to its perils for men considering marrying one ; Mind you, i dont condone the Guys foul talk , but he hits the perils of Feminism for Men right on the head NoMarriage.com - honest marriage and relationship advice for men : Address:http://www.nomarriage.com/ 'If it were not for feminism women would still be treated as second-class citizens, have no rights, and be dominated by weird sex-and-power-mad men.' REPLY: If it were not for Feminism, todays woman would be : 1. A woman who men can respect and admire. 2. A woman who has dignity and respect for herself especially in the sexual arena. 3. A woman who a man would know that there are clearcut boundarys with when it comes to sexuality. 4. A woman who admit that killing her developing child in her womb , was always wrong , regardless of her sexual motivations. 5. A woman who would make a good wife and depend on her husband for spiritual, emotional, physical, and family support. 6. A woman who wouldnt look at her independence and financial earning ability and conclude that she doesnt need a man to support her anymore. 7. A woman who would allow a Man to take his God given way of being wired so he could provide,protect, nourish , and uplift his wife . 8. A woman who wouldnt be an uncontrollable complainer because she feels entitled to whatever she darn well pleases within a relationship. 9. A woman who would dress like a Lady that demands respect from men instead of a Tramp that dresses like a Hooker and sleeps around with any guy who shows the least bit of attention toward her (for the purpose of using her for a mere copulation). 10. Ill let Shad list whatever #10 is ! lol.. > 'If it were not for feminism women would still be treated as > second-class citizens, have no rights, and be dominated by weird [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > 10. Ill let Shad list whatever #10 is ! lol.. As the Sex Pistols say; "Never Mind the Bollocks..." > 'If it were not for feminism women would still be treated as > second-class citizens, have no rights, and be dominated by weird [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > 10. Ill let Shad list whatever #10 is ! lol.. A very good list. I'll happily add number 10. 10) A woman who proudly and happily puts her man first and foremost, children second, parents third and herself fourth. It's all about sensible and proper priorities. A woman who puts herself first is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. If a woman isn't interested in having a man in her life then she can still make herself useful. Mother Teresa is a good example of that. That about sums it all up. Shad O'Shay Shad O'Shay >> 'If it were not for feminism women would still be treated as >> second-class citizens, have no rights, and be dominated by weird [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> 2. A woman who has dignity and respect for herself especially in the >> sexual arena. has no potential attraction from other men >> 3. A woman who a man would know that there are clearcut boundarys >> with when it comes to sexuality. >> 4. A woman who admit that killing her developing child in her womb , >> was always wrong , regardless of her sexual motivations. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > That about sums it all up. So you want a totally helpless subservient woman with failure mental attitude who is unattractive, staid, conservative, prudish, self-sacrificing to the point of self-denial,... You don't want a woman; you want a robot nursemaid. : It's no wonder DILV's wife left him; the poor cow was in a no-win situation. As for Sad Richochet; I just hope he doesn't burst his rubber dolly lady with the do-everything-slave-extension. It's blatantly obvious that you're a pair of sad lonely emotionally-crippled losers who will be that way for the rest of your pathetic solitary lives. If either of you do ever get a woman then please pass on my heartfelt sympathies to her. You should both have a warning notice tattooed on your genitals to warn any potential blonde halfwit of the dangers of climbing onboard. I feel ill after reading that obnoxious barrage of anti-social sh.t ever to spew forth onto Usenet since its inception. This load of regurgitated rotting putrid maggot-infested stinking garbage is on a par with a lesser and modern version of the Malleus Maleficarum minus physical torture. This kind of disgusting vile verbal excreta would make a London sewer appear pure and fragrant in comparison. 'You should both have a warning notice tattooed on your genitals to warn any potential blonde halfwit of the dangers of climbing onboard.' REPLY: As a female , you put down other females just because they have blonde hair ? 'I feel ill after reading that obnoxious barrage of anti-social sh.t ' REPLY: Perhaps youve never been acquainted with how The Creators original design was . I dont think he appeciates your choice of ill-imagined words because you dont want to get with the program. 'to spew forth onto Usenet since its inception.' REPLY: When did it start anyway ? 'This kind of disgusting vile verbal excreta would make a London sewer appear pure and fragrant in comparison.' REPLY: Because it has some order, civility, and challenges complete Feminist autonomy ??? > 'You should both have a warning notice tattooed on your genitals to > warn any potential blonde halfwit of the dangers of climbing onboard.' > > REPLY: As a female , you put down other females just because they > have blonde hair ? Have you heard of "speaking metaphorically"? > 'I feel ill after reading that obnoxious barrage of anti-social sh.t ' > > REPLY: Perhaps youve never been acquainted with how The Creators > original design was . Don't give me that; it's a fundy woman-supressing control tactic. > I dont think he appeciates your choice of > ill-imagined words because you dont want to get with the program. The words are well-managed: Perhaps cutting but precise and accurate. It's not a case of "don't want to..."; I simply couldn't even if I did want to. - It goes against everything I believe and everything I am: To me it's vile and putrid garbage. > 'to spew forth onto Usenet since its inception.' > > REPLY: When did it start anyway ? When you got a web tv box. > 'This kind of disgusting vile verbal excreta would make a London sewer > appear pure and fragrant in comparison.' > > REPLY: Because it has some order, civility, and challenges complete > Feminist autonomy ??? Because it's a violation of basic human rights, it's disengeneous, it's repressive, cheauvanistic, potentially dangerous for vulnerable women, dominative, and in a way hateful. >> 'You should both have a warning notice tattooed on your genitals to >> warn any potential blonde halfwit of the dangers of climbing onboard.' [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > repressive, cheauvanistic, potentially dangerous for vulnerable women, > dominative, and in a way hateful. How parochial! (second definition, btw). You know so little, girlie. Are you sure you ain't some 20-something year-old trying to act like somebody older and wiser? Did you know most animals have a hierarchy of power. Take a wolf pack, for example. There is only one head wolf. He's the boss. Every other wolf in the pack defers to him. As long as they do, the head wolf can't harm a submissive. All a submissive has to do if he or she angers the head wolf is roll over onto his/her back and expose their stomach. Show's vulnerability and the head wolf is biologically programmed in such a way that he cannot rip out the intestines or even bite the exposed stomach. This works even with wolves from another pack. Enemies so to speak. As long as they defer they are safe. You women need to get it through your pretty little heads that humans are programmed in much the same way. Show me a woman who has been abused and I'll show you a woman who won't shut her big mouth. She won't defer. She keeps trying to be the boss. Obstinate, stubborn, stupid! So she gets abused. She's too ignorant or too stupid or both to understand she only needs to act like a woman and she won't be abused. Your entire premise and your fear of men seems to be based upon illogic such as your statement above "dangerous for vulnerable women." Simply not so. Unless a woman runs into a psychopath, the more vulnerable she is with a normal man the safer she is. It's built into a man to protect his woman. Why harm somebody who's cooperating? Any normal man is not aggressive to a submissive woman. If you've had problems with your past relationships with men, think back and examine how you acted. Did you try to be the Alpha? If so, you caused whatever abuse you may have experienced. You had the cheek to challenge to a fight a stronger individual. That's stupid. This is how the world of humanity works. You might call it chauvinism but that's just Femi-Nazi speak. You feminists are your own worst enemies. You make your own bed but when you can't sleep in it you never examine how you made it wrong and caused your insomnia. Shad O'Shay >>> 'You should both have a warning notice tattooed on your genitals to >>> warn any potential blonde halfwit of the dangers of climbing [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > wolves from another pack. Enemies so to speak. As long as they defer > they are safe. Humans aren't wolves.; though I see that you have a loose concept of evolutionary design. Dimwit's pond-scum is glowing. > You women need to get it through your pretty little heads that humans > are programmed in much the same way. Show me a woman who has been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to understand she only needs to act like a woman and she won't be > abused. So from your soiel you appear to be implying that you would be within your rights to assault a woman who won't submit to you because you're a male? > Your entire premise and your fear of men Fear? OK I'll admit I would be hesitant about meeting you in a dark alley; but you appear to be a particularly strange individual from what you say. > seems to be based upon > illogic such as your statement above "dangerous for vulnerable > women." Simply not so. Unless a woman runs into a psychopath, the > more vulnerable she is with a normal man the safer she is. Define "normal". > It's built > into a man to protect his woman. Many serial killers who prey on women have been married and have never even laid a finger on their partner. > Why harm somebody who's cooperating? You sound exactly like your psycho god. : "If you don't submit to me I'll torture you; but if you do submit to me I'll bless you." : Control by fear and intimidation. > Any normal man is not aggressive to a submissive woman. If I ever met you I'd walk silently away; you are coming across as a sick individual. > If you've had > problems with your past relationships with men, think back and > examine how you acted. Did you try to be the Alpha? If so, you caused > whatever abuse you may have experienced. You had the cheek to > challenge to a fight a stronger individual. That's stupid. You *are* sick. : You're saying that if a woman stands up for herself against a man she deserves to be abused! : You're a dangerous individual who needs counselling and possibly detention. > This is how the world of humanity works. That's how your delusional male domineering attitude works. You should seek therapy fast before you end up in jail as a woman-beater! > You might call it chauvinism > but that's just Femi-Nazi speak. You feminists are your own worst > enemies. You make your own bed but when you can't sleep in it you > never examine how you made it wrong and caused your insomnia. This guy is one very dangerous individual. : I advise any woman to stay well out of his way until he has completed a therapeutic course and is certified as cured of his delusions by a qualified psychologist. <biggish snip> > Humans aren't wolves.; though I see that you have a loose concept of > evolutionary design. Dimwit's pond-scum is glowing. Where did you get the idea that Christians don't believe evolution? Evolution is fact. You gotta be dumb as a box of rocks to deny it. <snipped snippet> > So from your soiel you appear to be implying that you would be within your > rights to assault a woman who won't submit to you because you're a male? No, I never said that. I just was pointing out the FACT that when a woman challenges a man physically, most of the time she's gonna lose because, generally speaking, women are the weaker sex physically. Just like you shouldn't jump out in front of a speeding train and yell at it and shake your fist your gonna get creamed but not because the train has a RIGHT to run you over but just because it can. So you shouldn't assume an agressive posture towards a man either unless you WANT to get hurt. No man has a RIGHT to strike somebody else, man or woman but he can, every man has that ability. Any woman foolish enough to deny that fact will probably end up getting hurt. > Fear? OK I'll admit I would be hesitant about meeting you in a dark alley; > but you appear to be a particularly strange individual from what you say. Strange is a matter of perspective. I'm one of the more normal people in this world - highly intelligent, a prime physical specimen (almost superhuman), very logical, totally grounded in reality and not afraid to exercise my abilities both physical and mental. And, I don't hang out in dark alleys. I prefer a long stretch of daytime highway, a good bike and a dozen or so other elite athletes to joust with to prove my manhood. It's not just a physical thing. There's more mental sparring in cycling than any layman knows. Mind over matter counts for a whole lot. > Define "normal. Sure: normal n 1 : one that is normal 2 : the usual condition, level, or quantity > Many serial killers who prey on women have been married and have never > even laid a finger on their partner. Didn't I already qualify my statement by saying it doesn't apply to psychos? > You sound exactly like your psycho god. : "If you don't submit to me I'll > torture you; but if you do submit to me I'll bless you." : Control by fear > and intimidation. Negative. The statement was more like if you're intelligent enough to play the game by the rules of the game you will not get hurt. You will succeed. If you attempt to cheat or set up your own rules you're liable to get hurt. This goes for everybody, men and women. > If I ever met you I'd walk silently away; you are coming across as a sick > individual. If you saw me on the street you'd probably swoon! (not from fright but from delight). > You *are* sick. : You're saying that if a woman stands up for herself > against a man she deserves to be abused! : You're a dangerous individual > who needs counseling and possibly detention. I never said that, girlie. Nobody *deserves* to be abused. People are always victims of abuse. But the truth of the matter is they are willing victims because they never bothered to learn the rules or are too arrogant to learn them or too stupid to learn them. Ever hear the old saying, "If your gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough?" For the most part if you get hurt it's because YOU put yourself in harm's way. Cause and effect - both the very foundation of logical thinking. Yet, liberals, and you sound like a liberal, constantly strive to deny cause and effect. If something bad happens to a liberal it's always out of their control and not their fault. The sad fact is most of the time it IS their fault. > That's how your delusional male domineering attitude works. You should > seek therapy fast before you end up in jail as a woman-beater! Never been in jail in my life so far. What you call a delusional male attitude I call logic and reality. As for therapy I have no need of such nonsense. Nothing wrong with my brain function. > This guy is one very dangerous individual. : I advise any woman to stay > well out of his way until he has completed a therapeutic course and is > certified as cured of his delusions by a qualified psychologist. Ha ha ha! A qualified psychologist, indeed! Some touchy feely liberal weenie who thinks anybody but a fellow limp-wristed coward couch potato isn't normal. No thanks. I'm just a loveable little fuzzball who has to tie half my brain behind my back just to make things fair. I wouldn't hurt a fly. Can I help it if my superior mental abilities intimidate some people? Admit it, you're not able to experience anything but my mental prowess on Usenet. Yet my words frighten you like a fist. Why is that? It's because you're no match for me in a war of words. Not even your witchcraft can avail you. I am a master debater. Shad O'Shay > <biggish snip> >> Humans aren't wolves.; though I see that you have a loose concept of >> evolutionary design. Dimwit's pond-scum is glowing. > > Where did you get the idea that Christians don't believe evolution? > Evolution is fact. You gotta be dumb as a box of rocks to deny it. There you go Dimwit; I need say no more. ;) > <snipped snippet> >> So from your soiel you appear to be implying that you would be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > woman but he can, every man has that ability. Any woman foolish > enough to deny that fact will probably end up getting hurt. So you liken yourself to a train in that a train is unable to stop in any short distance should someone jump out on it. - That's quite an interesting projection. : So you barge straight through; the competitive spirit that makes you determined to win at all costs. You bicycle may not be the best there is but you'll ride it as if it were and nothing will stop you reaching the finish line first. If a woman jumps out in fromt of you you'll just mow her down- She's not important; only reaching the goal of that finish line is. If a woman doesn't submit to you you just slap or punch her down because she's in the way of you getting to the goal of being a big I am - That's your finish line - to appear the best even if you have to take performance-enhancing drugs and cheat to do so, and some stupid daft bint in your way isn't going to hinder you is it? Flatten the bitch; she threatens your "supremacy" and you can't have that can you? No way! You're the train thundering down the track and you're getting to destination on time no matter what; your ego is driving and you can't stop yourself. : "Outta my way stupid bitch or I'll flatten you." >> Fear? OK I'll admit I would be hesitant about meeting you in a dark >> alley; but you appear to be a particularly strange individual from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > superhuman), very logical, totally grounded in reality and not afraid > to exercise my abilities both physical and mental. Perhaps if you came to england this winter and bent over we could all sunbathe in the light from your arsehole so long as you can manage not to vanish up it. > And, I don't hang > out in dark alleys. I prefer a long stretch of daytime highway, a > good bike and a dozen or so other elite athletes to joust with to > prove my manhood. I'm in a state of combined disbelief and hysterics. I think I'll just go and do something sensible like hoovering the garden at night while I get over the sheer ridiculousness of that unbelievably crass statement. > It's not just a physical thing. There's more mental > sparring in cycling than any layman knows. Mind over matter counts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sure: normal n 1 : one that is normal 2 : the usual condition, > level, or quantity 1. One cannot *define* normal as "normal" any more than one can define a sheep as a sheep. 2. The "usual" condition might be insanity for all the reader knows. >> Many serial killers who prey on women have been married and have >> never even laid a finger on their partner. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > will succeed. If you attempt to cheat or set up your own rules you're > liable to get hurt. This goes for everybody, men and women. How about cyclists who take performance-enhancing drugs? >> If I ever met you I'd walk silently away; you are coming across as a >> sick individual. > > If you saw me on the street you'd probably swoon! (not from fright > but from delight). ! >> You *are* sick. : You're saying that if a woman stands up for herself >> against a man she deserves to be abused! : You're a dangerous [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > always out of their control and not their fault. The sad fact is most > of the time it IS their fault. "Plough the bitch down; it's her own fault for being in my way in the first place- stupid cow!" >> That's how your delusional male domineering attitude works. You >> should seek therapy fast before you end up in jail as a woman-beater! > > Never been in jail in my life so far. Famous last words. > What you call a delusional male > attitude I call logic and reality. You would; you're a delusional male. > As for therapy I have no need of > such nonsense. Nothing wrong with my brain function. *KEN* ...Citation needed... >> This guy is one very dangerous individual. : I advise any woman to >> stay well out of his way until he has completed a therapeutic course [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > potato isn't normal. No thanks. I'm just a loveable little fuzzball > who has to tie half my brain behind my back just to make things fair. Do they make thread fine enough for such a picoscopic operation? > I wouldn't hurt a fly. It's not flies I'm worried about. > Can I help it if my superior mental abilities > intimidate some people? Admit it, you're not able to experience > anything but my mental prowess on Usenet. Careful; you nearly banged the top of your big head on the moon. > Yet my words frighten you > like a fist. Why is that? It's because you're no match for me in a > war of words. Not even your witchcraft can avail you. I am a master > debater. I think mass-debater is more the phrase. > Sad O'sh.t > So you liken yourself to a train in that a train is unable to stop in any > short distance should someone jump out on it. - That's quite an > interesting projection. : So you barge straight through; the competitive > spirit that makes you determined to win at all costs. You bicycle may not > be the best there is but you'll ride it as if it were and nothing will > stop you reaching the finish line first. My bike is among the best. Always! I deserve the best. Talent on loan from God. > If a woman jumps out in fromt of you you'll just mow her down- She's not > important; only reaching the goal of that finish line is. If she's really pretty, I'll probably slow down for a while and ogle her. She'll inspire me with her beauty so I'll easily be able to make up the lost time . . . > If a woman doesn't submit to you you just slap or punch her down because > she's in the way of you getting to the goal of being a big I am - My women know their place. They don't provoke and run around like some ignorant feminist. They know honey gets better results than vinegar. > That's your finish line - to appear the best even if you have to take > performance-enhancing drugs and cheat to do so, and some stupid daft bint [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time no matter what; your ego is driving and you can't stop yourself. : > "Outta my way stupid bitch or I'll flatten you." You're over reacting to the max, girlie! I was just using an example of how foolish it is to expect something different to happen that's just about impossible to happen like expecting a train to stop in a few feet. In the same manner a woman should realize a man can't be constantly provoked with impunity. You can't change the laws of nature just because you believe some dumb femi-Nazi agenda. > Perhaps if you came to england this winter and bent over we could all > sunbathe in the light from your arsehole so long as you can manage not to > vanish up it. You'd be turned on at the very sight of my glutes. Very developed. Ripped. Buff. > How about cyclists who take performance-enhancing drugs? Up till recently we all did it. You couldn't be competitive in the elite ranks without it. But, that's all changed. Now it's considered cheating and I agree it is cheating now because probably more 80-90% of the elites have had to quit it. The testing has gotten too accurate. You can't get away with it anymore. Maybe some really new exotic stuff but I don't do illegal stuff anymore. It's not worth it. It'll end your career. Times have changed and I say for the better. > "Plough the bitch down; it's her own fault for being in my way in the > first place- stupid cow!" Your insecurity complex is showing, girlie! > Do they make thread fine enough for such a picoscopic operation? Don't quit your dayjob! > I think mass-debater is more the phrase. Better, but don't expect a comedy club to give you a raise. Shad O'Shay >> So you liken yourself to a train in that a train is unable to stop >> in any short distance should someone jump out on it. - That's quite [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > My women know their place. They don't provoke and run around like some > ignorant feminist. They know honey gets better results than vinegar. There are times when rubbing salt into the wounds prevents future festering and aids healing; despite the subject's protestations and maybe violenct reaction in the face of pain. >> That's your finish line - to appear the best even if you have to take >> performance-enhancing drugs and cheat to do so, and some stupid daft [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > constantly provoked with impunity. You can't change the laws of > nature just because you believe some dumb femi-Nazi agenda. your initial analysis was correct; and I was fishing for your reaction. >> Perhaps if you came to england this winter and bent over we could all >> sunbathe in the light from your arsehole so long as you can manage >> not to vanish up it. > > You'd be turned on at the very sight of my glutes. Very developed. > Ripped. Buff. No comment. >> How about cyclists who take performance-enhancing drugs? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exotic stuff but I don't do illegal stuff anymore. It's not worth it. > It'll end your career. Times have changed and I say for the better. Agreed. >> "Plough the bitch down; it's her own fault for being in my way in the >> first place- stupid cow!" > > Your insecurity complex is showing, girlie! Still fishing for your reaction... >> Do they make thread fine enough for such a picoscopic operation? > > Don't quit your dayjob! I'll keep building the best computers in UK. >> I think mass-debater is more the phrase. > > Better, but don't expect a comedy club to give you a raise. LOL - Excellent comeback! Bugger all. SOS may or may not be my intellectual equal; however his delusional beliefs put him at a severe disadvantage - As does his knowledge of electronics - or should I say lack of it. And you're BOTH too f.cking stupid to grasp the concept that you've been killfiled by nearly everyone in here On Nov 6, 3:40 pm, DumbfuckDave in Lake Villa) wrote: Ken wrote:.....And you're BOTH too f.cking stupid to grasp the concept that you've been killfiled by nearly everyone in here And the only reason I see ANY of his posts is you keep answering him.  SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) On Nov 7, 2:35 am, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <JerryD@anywhere> wrote: > On Nov 6, 3:40 pm, DumbfuckDave in Lake Villa) wrote: Ken wrote:.....And you're BOTH too f.cking stupid to grasp the concept that > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > JerryD(upstateNY) Sorry for that..Jerry I'm really trying to quit but the effects of my prescription anti- troll patch seems to have worn off recently. Time to consider a stronger dosage....Ken Ken wrote:.. Sorry for that..Jerry I'm really trying to quit but the effects of my prescription anti- troll patch seems to have worn off recently. Time to consider a stronger dosage....Ken<<< hehehehe SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) 'Sorry for that..Jerry I'm really trying to quit but the effects of my prescription anti- troll patch seems to have worn off recently. Time to consider a stronger dosage....Ken' REPLY: Youre a retired Chemist ; check the basement and see if you still have any Sodium Penathol left ; it will put you out of the totally accidental, unpurposed life that (by a fluke) arose from ancient Pond Scum ....which you agree occurred. Right Ken ? > 'Sorry for that..Jerry > I'm really trying to quit but the effects of my prescription anti- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > totally accidental, unpurposed life that (by a fluke) arose from > ancient Pond Scum ....which you agree occurred. Right Ken ? Sodium pentathol, in a mild dosage, increases one's responses to suggestion and breaks down one's resistance barriers, increasing and activating any latent gullibility in the subject. : It's also known as "truth serum"; in which case it might benefit you no end as it can't possibly make you any more gullible than you already are. > Sad O'sh.t posts from aioe.org Here's a few comments I dug up at random from here and there.:- ">>>>aoie.org is just some Italian twit with a computer in his basement that >>>>seems likely to be one of the f.ckers by the way he acts." ">>>if they don't have a working abuse@ report them to rfc-ignorant.org (website) >>>they'll be blacklisted, >>> >>>other things to try, check their whois record if it contains false >>>information report that to the listed registrar and they could loose >>>their domain name." ">> Some that even have legit set-ups are aiding the abusers. >> altnet and aioe.org are two examples of "services" that do not police >>the abusers OUT of their realms." >> Sad O'sh.t posts from aioe.org > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> altnet and aioe.org are two examples of "services" that do not police >>>the abusers OUT of their realms." Well, what do we have here? A netKKKop? Somebody who wants to be the arbiter of the definition of abuse and who wants to foist her standards onto Usenet? And this same person claims to embody a live and let live attitude? Hmmm, rather illogical of you, girlie. Why not get yourself a free aioe account. Use and understand something before you disparage it why don't you? I think even you can handle setting one up. All you have to do is click a link and it configures itself and downloads all available newsgroups. Try it, you might like it. http://news.aioe.org/ Click on "News server" on the menu on the left and then click on one of the servers in the settings section. Shad O'Shay (shoulda been a computer geek) >>> Sad O'sh.t posts from aioe.org >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > standards onto Usenet? And this same person claims to embody a live > and let live attitude? Hmmm, rather illogical of you, girlie. What are you bumbling on about now? Oh I don't have any more time or patience for your delusional banter. WTF delusional crapola are you inventing now? Are you so utterly outside of reality that you can't understand the meaning of "Here's a few comments I dug up at random from here and there.:-"? > Why not get yourself a free aioe account. Because I neither need or want one. Why not get yourself a chainsaw to sleep with? (If you can resist cutting up women with it.) > Use and understand something > before you disparage it why don't you? The quotes weren't my words. : Are you as dumb as this when you read the sh.t in your Bible? > I think even you can handle > setting one up. All you have to do is click a link and it configures > itself and downloads all available newsgroups. Try it, you might like > it. http://news.aioe.org/ Click on "News server" on the menu on the > left and then click on one of the servers in the settings section. I notice they don't enforce their tiny TOS : "...and it's strictly forbidden to post binary contents, spam and other kinds of abuses." - Meaning you should by rights have been kicked off their servers ages ago. > Shad O'Shay (shoulda been a computer geek) - But you're not; In fact you > have no idea of even how a CPU functions. : "Even I, a mere athlete, know chips are made outta silicon. They etch little teensy weensy channels into them for the electricity to flow and them make them in layers that form the semi conductors. That's why they call it Silicon Valley. Doh!" Mogs (My friend who is a Witch and another technopagan.) and I were in stitches reading that! It's a classic and is recorded in the annals of fuckwittery above even some of DILV's works of stupidity. (His claims that the sun runs on nitrogen fusion and his ignorance of litmus paper still top the charts though.) You're a typical case of "Should have been..." But look what you ended up as: A dangerous fuckwit with a huge ego, and you're so far up yourself you clean your teeth from inside. > What are you bumbling on about now? Oh I don't have any more time or > patience for your delusional banter. > WTF delusional crapola are you inventing now? Are you so utterly outside > of reality that you can't understand the meaning of You must be a Usenet newbie if you never heard of netKKKops or net nannies. You must lead a sheltered life, girlie. > Because I neither need or want one. Why not get yourself a chainsaw to > sleep with? (If you can resist cutting up women with it.) That's not a very nice thing to say. > The quotes weren't my words. : Are you as dumb as this when you read the > sh.t in your Bible? I know you were copying and pasting somebody else's posts but you were using them to reflect your OWN thinking. Since I can't comment to the OP's since you were so rude you did not attribute them I was forced to comment to the source of the plagiarism. > I notice they don't enforce their tiny TOS : > "...and it's strictly forbidden to post binary contents, spam and other > kinds of abuses." - Meaning you should by rights have been kicked off > their servers ages ago. Show me where I've ever posted spam, binaries, or "abuse." > Mogs (My friend who is a Witch and another technopagan.) and I were in > stitches reading that! It's a classic and is recorded in the annals of > fuckwittery above even some of DILV's works of stupidity. (His claims that > the sun runs on nitrogen fusion and his ignorance of litmus paper still > top the charts though.) You're the one whose uninformed and your Mogs is ignorant, too. http://www.sematech.org/corporate/news/mfgproc/mfgproc.htm Please read the part where it says: Silicon Wafers- The Chip's Foundation Almost all of today's computer chips are built on silicon wafers because silicon is a natural semiconductor; it can conduct electricity or be converted to an insulator which prevents conductioninexpensive and abundant; wafers are made of highly purified sand which has been refined to produce 99.9999% pure silicon. That 99.9999% sure doesn't leave much room for your other compounds. Doh! Also read the part about it being a natural semiconductor. Since when does a natural semi-conductor need other compounds to make it a semi-conductor? Go back to tech school, girlie. I know of which I speak. I already told you my IQ matches or exceeds yours plus when combined with uncommon common sense you're left far far behind gasping in my dust just like most of my cycling competition. > You're a typical case of "Should have been..." But look what you ended up > as: A dangerous fuckwit with a huge ego, and you're so far up yourself you > clean your teeth from inside. You sure repeat that "so far up yourself" phrase often. I wonder why that is. Maybe it's because you're a latent homosexual and maybe that's why you accuse DILV of being one? Shad O'Shay (Silver Medallist today) >> What are you bumbling on about now? Oh I don't have any more time or >> patience for your delusional banter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You must be a Usenet newbie if you never heard of netKKKops or net > nannies. You must lead a sheltered life, girlie. Oh I'm somewhat a pro on Usenet; but I'm surprised that I've never seen your trollings elsewhere before. I've met most of the usual Xian trolls such as Leonard Abbot(oir), and of course DILV. I also know most of the non-Xian trolls too; such as BobandCarole, and the legendary Kadaicha Man who managed to pull off the ultimate troll by faking his own death. : That's just 2 examples; and then there's the Linux trolls like chris v/Linonut/Flatfish; but you're a whole new experience in trolling; a troll of some obscure order of trolls. - Perhaps it's you who's the rookie? (I even got a rare mention in the K-Man's Peanut Gallery as a non-fuckwit.) >> Because I neither need or want one. Why not get yourself a chainsaw >> to sleep with? (If you can resist cutting up women with it.) > > That's not a very nice thing to say. Your rhetoric belies your cheavanistic woman-demoting attitude. >> The quotes weren't my words. : Are you as dumb as this when you read >> the sh.t in your Bible? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to the OP's since you were so rude you did not attribute them I was > forced to comment to the source of the plagiarism. I would have done so but such a revelation of source would have used a lot of space since the sources were many. For the sake of bandwidth I didn't bother. >> I notice they don't enforce their tiny TOS : >> "...and it's strictly forbidden to post binary contents, spam and >> other kinds of abuses." - Meaning you should by rights have been >> kicked off their servers ages ago. > > Show me where I've ever posted spam, binaries, or "abuse." It was the "abuse" aspect that I was remarking upon. : "A woman without a man is nothing. She has absolutely no reason to exist." - IMO this is abuse. >> Mogs (My friend who is a Witch and another technopagan.) and I were >> in stitches reading that! It's a classic and is recorded in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The Chip's Foundation > Almost all of today's computer chips are built on silicon wafers -Correct. > because silicon is a natural semiconductor; it can conduct > electricity or be converted to an insulator which prevents > conduction -That is utter crap. Silicon is a natural insulator. It can be converted to a semiconductive state by doping with various materials. I've done the course and have the qualifications to prove it. Where are your qualifications? >inexpensive and abundant; wafers are made of highly > purified sand which has been refined to produce 99.9999% pure silicon. - > Correct > > That 99.9999% sure doesn't leave much room for your other compounds. > Doh! Also read the part about it being a natural semiconductor. It's not; it's an excellent insulator. > Go back to tech school, girlie. I know of which I > speak. OK continue misinformed and/or in ignorance; 'typical Christian. I'm not going to argue with you. >I already told you my IQ matches or exceeds yours plus when > combined with uncommon common sense you're left far far behind > gasping in my dust just like most of my cycling competition. Could you move your head please; America isn't getting any sunlight. >> You're a typical case of "Should have been..." But look what you >> ended up as: A dangerous fuckwit with a huge ego, and you're so far [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that is. Maybe it's because you're a latent homosexual and maybe > that's why you accuse DILV of being one? Latent?! I *am* at least semi-lesbian if not fully (Although inactive.). I've never denied it. It's no secret. With your alleged extreme intellectual capacity your knowledge is sadly lacking. >>> What are you bumbling on about now? Oh I don't have any more time or >>> patience for your delusional banter. [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >> combined with uncommon common sense you're left far far behind >> gasping in my dust just like most of my cycling competition. Time for your meal of humble pie; 'hope it chokes you! :- "The new wafers are then taken and doped appropriately for the type of transistors that will be made out of them. Doping amounts to depositing other elements into the space between silicon atoms. This is what causes silicon to be the "semiconductor" that it is. Transistors today are made from "CMOS" technology, or Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductors. Complementary means the interaction of "n" and "p" MOS circuits. N and P as it does in most electronics, defines negative and positive. In most cases, the wafer is doped to be a "p" type substrate, which is necessary for nMOS circuitry, as this type of transistor is the more efficient space and energy wise. In most designs, you try to limit the number of pMOS transistors used. These are grown in later during fabrication with specific "n-wells" put into the oppositely doped p substrate where they are needed." http://www.sudhian.com/index.php?/articles/show/Processor_Fabrication:__How_a_CP U_is_Built/wafer_cutting_masking_and_doping Apologise you pompous little turd! > Could you move your head please; America isn't getting any sunlight. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > inactive.). I've never denied it. It's no secret. With your alleged > extreme intellectual capacity your knowledge is sadly lacking. Now you're asking "Why do you criticise DILV for being homosexual when you are admittedly yourself? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?" In short no. I'm bisexual to the point of pretty much full lesbian and I've never denied that fact. DILV is clearly gay and has admitted dabbling in homosexuality in the past but goes round preaching against it ; calling it "evil", and hypocritically rebuking and denouncing others for it. Now don't give me any of the usual shite about being made new in the image of Christ; you and I both know that that is total and utter bullshit, so lets cut the crap before we start. I've known and trusted many so-called "born-again" people and can verify from bitter experience that there is no such thing as "born-again" except in the case of my current new-virginity.: "Born-again" people, Christians, are exactly the same as they always were; and just as corrupt if not more so. All that happens is that their fellow Xians convince then that some miraculous transformation has ocurred in them; and so as not to seem to go against the grain they try to live a lie- sometimes fairly convincingly, and say things like "Halleluia" and "Praise the Lord" a lot. It's an act; nothing more, nothing less. : Time to be honest with everyone and with yourself for a change. : Stop living a lie and admit it to yourself and to me...Because if you; the most big-headed, stuck up, cheauvanistic, pompous, full-of-yourself arrogant git I've ever met online have been transformed into a new creation in the image of Christ then Christ was another pompous arrogant woman-hating git; and it's no wonder that Xianity is a male-dominated woman-repressing fragmented manmade cult-like religion today....But DILV is fairly similar in many ways to you. : Does that mean you're *both* remade in the image of Christ then? Simply no; it means you're both brainwashed insecure repressed unsatisfied individuals who've allowed this pathetic controlling excuse for a religion to strip away your personalities to a certain extent and mould you in the fundy cloning machine into the same model of biological recruitment machine. There is no such thing as a "born-again Christian" , or a "born-christian" come to that. Everyone has a choice in their outlook and beliefs until people like you appear and attempt to take their freedom of choice away in attempting to force then to conform to a predetermined instruction set. : That's fine for CPUs, computers and rrobots - that's what they do; but personally I'm human and I intend to remain that way. Whe |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message