Re: OT Flame War

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Ed Dolan wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>...The fact is that the poor in this country
>>>>live better than do the poor in any other country in the world including
>>>>Europe's poor....
>>>
>>>Mr. Dolan opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his willful ignorance.
>>>How is being homeless, hungry, and without medical care better than
>>>having the provision of housing, food and medical care guaranteed.
>>>
>>>This has to be one of the most idiotic things Mr. Dolan has ever written,
>>>which is saying a lot.
>>
>>
>> I do not see any poor people starving in the streets. Until I do I will
>> not worry excessively about them. We have welfare programs to pick up
>> those who fall by the wayside.
>
> If Worthington is like many small towns in the US, the police pick up
> homeless people and drop them off in a larger city.

I surely hope that is what the police do. But I do not see any people
starving in the streets of Sioux Falls either and that is a large city. I
suppose I would have to go to a really large city like New York in order to
see people starving in the streets. But I once lived in New York and I never
did see any people starving in the streets there. Please, Mr. Tom, tell me
where I can go in this country to see some people starving in the streets.
How about the Quad Cities?

If and when I finally do see some people starving in the streets, I am going
to advise them to go to a shelter where they can get a good meal. After all,
it is better to eat something than to be starving in the streets and making
a confounded nuisance of yourself. Besides, it is unsightly to see starving
people laying about prostate in the streets. I do not know if you can even
see people starving in the streets of Calcutta, India. I always wanted to go
there to see that.

There are plenty of lay-a-bouts in the public squares and streets of San
Francisco and Seattle, but they all look very well fed to me. I would pay
good money to see someone starving in the streets, but I don't know where to
go to see such a sight. When I look around me, all I ever see are extremely
well fed people with huge pot bellies on the men and huge pot thighs on the
women. I haven't seen a starving person in a coon's age.

> There are plenty of homeless people in the US. And the government provided
> benefits are not enough to live on properly, or to even rent an apartment
> (it is hard to get hired when one is homeless).

Housing does seem terribly expensive in this country, especially in the
Metros. I would advise all those who are homeless to get the hell out of the
city and into a rural area where you will get taken care of at much lower
rents. There are houses for sale for just a few thousand dollars here in the
rural areas of the Upper Midwest. After all, if you aren't working, you are
better off not working where living expenses are not so high. Elementary, my
dear Watson.

You tell me the poor have no bread. I say let them eat cake.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Leuck wrote:
[...]
>> Yes and paper ballots worked great in Florida in 2000
>
> Those were not "paper ballots" as usually defined, but machine punched
> cards. As is typical practice, the oldest machines that spoil the highest
> percentage of ballots were used in predominantly black precincts.

The ballots used here were paper ballets (a single sheet) where you just
connected the lines between the name and the party with a lead pencil. What
could be simpler. And more idiot proof.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> "gavin11756" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>****** indeed had courage. He won the Iron cross twice in WW1. His
>>>country was ruined by the Versailles treaty which the British though
>>>was bad, and the "you know who " had a lot to do with ruining the
>>>country.
>>>
>>>German troops popular in Russia as they hated Stalin
>>
>>
>> The downtrodden of the Soviet Union initially welcomed the Germans as
>> liberators. If ****** had played his cards different the outcome could
>> have been different.
>>
>> By the way, does any liberal know who killed more people in the course of
>> his rule, the National Socialist ****** or the Communist Stalin?
>
> Stalin was a communist in name only.

Stalin was a serious dedicated practical communist and he tried his worst to
try to make the system work, even if it meant that he had to kill many
millions of people.

> If we take various estimates of deaths due to various purges under Stalin,
> we end up with a range of 15-30 million, which is greater than the 5-7
> million that died under ****** in similar circumstances.
>
> However, weighed against this is the number of deaths caused by ******
> waging war in Europe which has been estimated to be in excess of 40
> million (25-30 million, or about 1 in every 8 in the Soviet Union alone).

I keep reading that Stalin was a far greater killer than ******, but maybe
that does not include the deaths involved in WW II. The thing that stands
out for me is that Stalin killed his own countrymen. ****** did this too,
but he did not regard the Jews and certain other peoples as Germans. That
being the case, I think Stalin was the greater monster. But herein lies the
danger of all ideology. It is imperative that men never be certain they are
absolutely right about anything under the sun and act accordingly. Doubt
about what you think is true is the beginning of all wisdom.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:51:39 GMT "Frank Olson"
> used 17 lines of text to write in newsgroup:
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>
>>"G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Frank, you're not going to let him get away with that RU?
>>
>>
>>Yup... He's a cretin. Rational people ignore idiotic ravings in favour
>>of
>>informed debate. Mr. Dolan continues to spout nonsense about the Muslim
>>faith based on supposition, hatred, and the actions of a small minority.
>>He
>>spouts lies and innuendo about people he's never met based on nothing more
>>than "if they don't think like me, they're traitors". He continues to do
>>absolutely *nothing* but make funny faces in front of his computer monitor
>>while letting others fight the "war" he so strongly favours.
>>
>
> Funny thing about the Internet, it has enabled people you would
> normally never hear from to express their views (however skewed they
> may be). These might be the types that are shirtless on a street
> corner, ringing a cowbell, proclaiming "The end is near!". Or they
> may be a well respected figure in their community - they could be a
> health worker, an executive, a blue collar tradesman, military
> personnel, you name it.

All I ever go by are the words I see in front of me on the computer screen.
Nothing else ever matters in the slightest.

> Modern technology has allowed their opinions (or rants) to appear
> right in your own home, in the form of electrons dancing across your
> screen. Everybody has an opinion about religion, morality, politics,
> world affairs, gay-marrage, drug legalization, etc...

Yes, that is true, but the ability to express that opinion in written form
that someone else might enjoy reading is not common. It takes some talent
and lots of practice.

> The one thing I have YET to see is someone responding to a person on
> the virtual soapbox and say, "You're right. My view on that issue was
> wrong, thank you for setting me straight." It just does not happen.

Such a thought has never even occurred to me. What a novel idea! If anyone
ever agreed with me about anything and said so, I would be in shock for a
week.

> There is an interesting sociological lesson in here somewhere. People
> don't come to Usenet topics like this to "debate". They come to vent
> frustration. They come to entertain themselves. Some just want
> someone to listen to them. I'm fairly certain no one actually
> believes they can change someone's mind about these issues.

Graham, you are right on your every point. But who would ever think
otherwise. Anyone who takes any of this Usenet nonsense seriously has got to
have rocks in his head. It is nothing but entertainment for me. However, a
side benefit is that it has sharpened my writing skills. I have always been
a great reader all of my life, but I have never written much. I think Usenet
was invented for souls like me.

Anyone who is not enjoying all this useless palaver should go elsewhere,
maybe back to the **** tube, or God forbid, go ride their bikes.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Frank Olson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aqhkd.170627$%k.120527@pd7tw2no...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> The Koran is what anyone wants to make of it. So is the Bible.
>>>> Christians stopped making a horror of the Bible several centuries ago.
>>>
>>> Oh?? Really?? How do you explain the Biblical "horrors" of this
>>> century then?? David Koresh. Jim Jones. Bountiful.
>>
>> The horrors of this century are all being committed by Muslims. The
>> horrors of the last century, which you reference, were very small cults,
>> aberrations of Christianity.
>
> Bountiful is still in full operation. The men there are abusing girls as
> young as eleven and twelve. I guess living in isolation in *Minnesota*
> tends to make you fell all warm and fuzzy.

Are these Mormons or what? Are the girls being stoned to death for imaginary
"dishonor"?

>> However, the main horrors of the last century were committed by leftist
>> ideologues, like ****** and Stalin and Mao, etc. In other words, they
>> were like you that way since you are also nothing but a leftist
>> ideologue.
>
> Hmmm... Ever heard of Robert Pickton??

Nope. Should I have?

>>>> The Muslims are still making a horror of their Koran.
>>>
>>> So are people that espouse Christianity.
>>
>> Not right now today they aren't.
>
> "Bountiful"...

Are these Mormons? If they are that would account for it. It is basically a
cult religion.

>>>> "Islam" (as a religion) is open to interpretation just as
>>>>> Chrisianity is. God gave us the ability to reason and the freedom to
>>>>> interpret His Word. Individuals that choose to "spin" that Word
>>>>> abound. "Extremists" exist in *every* faith. You can't condemn an
>>>>> entire people because of the actions of a few insane individuals.
>>>>
>>>> The very great numbers of Muslims who are choosing to interpret their
>>>> religion one way as opposed to another way are never just a few, but
>>>> rather constitute the vast majority in various regions of the world,
>>>> most particularly in the Middle East.
>>>
>>> And this premise is based on what statistical evidence??
>>
>> The great statistic of believing what you see with your own two eyes.
>
> Ahhh... then your "word" is "law"... )
> My mistake for not recognizing your "greatness".

Just believe your own two eyes and forget "statistics", which as everyone
knows can be made to lie about most anything.

>>>>>> The same goes for Tom Sherman who prefers to bash Christianity and
>>>>>> refer us to cartoon sites making jokes of hanging women and stoning
>>>>>> children in lieu of condemning these atrocities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Islamic fundamentalism isn't responsible for these atrocities. Men
>>>>> (and even some women) are.
>>
>> But all those men (and women) turn out to be Muslims. Most peculiar? Or
>> just coincidental?
>
> Of course they are!!! We're talking about *Islamic* fundamentalism. Not
> Sikh, Hindu, or even Christian...

In other words, Islamic (Muslim) men and women are committing the
atrocities, not Christians or Jews or any others.

>>>> It is precisely and exactly Islamic fundamentalism that is indeed
>>>> responsible for the atrocities that Muslims are committing in the world
>>>> today. What men think matters and religious thought gone astray is just
>>>> as dangerous as any other kind of thought gone astray, maybe more so.
>>>
>>> You obviously don't know how a "fundamentalist" interprets the Quran.
>>
>> Sure I do. It is a simple religion for simple people. Anyone who is not
>> an idiot like you can understand it.
>
> L. Ron Hubbard did it... I figure I can come up with a religion for
> idiots too...

Yes, there are a lot of very simple religions in the world because there are
a lot of very simple people in the world. But mainstream Christianity as it
has developed over a period of two thousand years is not a simple religion.
It is highly sophisticated and it takes intelligence to be able to follow
it.

<snip>

Frank, you need to learn how to edit a post. As I have already told you, it
is not necessary to respond to me line by line. Just go for the important
stuff - if you can distinguish what is important from what is not important.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mark Leuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lZhkd.15193$V41.10732@attbi_s52...
[...]
> Various reasons, mostly stupid things I did over a 5 year period, funny
> thing tho is you see many of the others in the same situation and almost
> all
> were there because of the following reasons
>
> 1. That was the life they chose (yes Tom those people do exist)
> 2. Alcoholism
> 3. Drug abuse
>
> (my reasons were not any of those)
>
> Now you can "think" all you want that the homeless are nothing but old
> men,
> women and children forced out by an oppressive government or cruel
> business
> hell-bent on starving them out of existance but I assure you that isn't
> the
> case, if you want proof go to any soup kitchen (nice one in N. Vegas) and
> talk to the people, ever been to one?
>
> They can easily get out of that situation yet they don't and won't. I
> don't
> know where you get your information but it is clearly wrong about many
> things based on my own experience and government statistics, my guess is
> you
> want to believe it regardless if it is factual or not and why this is I
> don't know. ...

Mr. Sherman thinks like he does because he has been brainwashed by liberal
and socialist ideology. In short, he is unreconstructed even though those
ideologies have been discredited by history. He will never get anything
right about society until he gives up his liberal and socialist ideologies.
He looks at the world through tinted glasses and is not able to see things
as they really are. That is always the effect of an ideology.

Ideology is nothing but a starting point. It can never be the end point. It
has to be trimmed to fit the realities. Mr. Sherman has made the colossal
mistake of thinking his ideology is an end point. Ideology is like
scientific theory. As facts come to light, it has to be changed to fit the
facts. Never the reverse. But an end of history ideology will make the facts
fit the ideology. It gets it backwards. That is why the Soviet Union fell
and why all ideologies end up on the scrap heap of history.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ogg Oggibly wrote:

> Yeah. Wring your hands. Jerk.

That's what /you're/ doing.

> I haven't heard of Hindus stoning anybody.

Forms of execution and lynching tend to move across religious
boundaries. It's that "local customs" thing again, regrettably. Note
that stoning was quite normal in the Middle East well before Islam even
existed, as you can find in the Bible. It is actually the God commanded
death of transgressions of /Biblical/ law, so no particular surprise
that another creed's Holy Book is apparently keen on it too. But just
like followers of the Bible don't necessarily feel the need to stone
people, nor does it it automatically follow that the Koran's devotees
do. Some do, but by no means the majority.

> If you know of recent Hindu stonings I would
> appreciate you pointing me to them. I will show no reluctance to condemn
> them.

So you say, but you'll actually bang on and on and on and on and on and
on and on and on some more about how dreadful Muslims and their religion
are.

> I thought I made that clear a while back. Give me a second and I will copy
> and paste it here for you to read again.
>
> "Let me make this clear to you. I AM NOT EQUATING THE ACTIONS OF EXTREMISTS
> MUSLIMS, ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS AND CLERICS WITH ALL MUSLIMS."

So you say, but then you do just what you say you don't do, by dopey
things like saying there is a global war on. Global means everywhere
and war is what was happening in Falluja yesterday. That is not
happening everywhere, thus there is not a global war going on between
Muslims and anyone else.

> "I have no problem condemning abuses of women and children be it my next
> door
> neighbor, a local priest, a Hindu, or an Islamic State/Nation, or whoever."

You say you don't have a problem doing it, but the only people you ever
get round to condemning in actuality are Muslims.

> No the female child of the post graduate Muslim (why do you always feel the
> need to mention the educational attainments of your Muslim acquaintances)

I work in a University so the examples I tend to meet are at University,
I mention what they do to underline they're pretty normal people.

> relatively safe in Scotland which happens, I believe to be a predominately
> Christian country which would deal harshly with the crime of stoning. But
> let's move that educated female child, who grew up among the Scottish
> infidels, to a Islamic Republic and her chances of being stoned to death go
> from nil to the real possibility of becoming a Zhila. It is this reality
> that your brain seems not to be able to accept.

The reality is that most Muslims live in Muslim states and about half of
them are female. That would be, a very conservative ballpark estimate,
say 300 million people in significant danger of being stoned. That's
self evidently nonsense.

> If you believe in civilized
> human rights, you should give thought, if that is possible, to supporting
> the separation of mosque and state.

I prefer disestablishment, as it happens, but OTOH the Church of England
is an established state religion and shows that it is not necessarily a
sure fire route to evildoing.

> Apparently neither does his girlfriend who doesn't want to talk about what
> is going on in her homeland. Or maybe like Peter she is apathetic about the
> Jihad declared in Amsterdam and feels its just another isolated incidence by
> some bad apples whose motivations are of no interest or consequence.

I never said that, I said she didn't pass on the information that her
friends and relations were quaking in their boots as they "braced for
Jihad", probably, I surmised, because none of them told her that they
were. Note that quaking in one's boots because of an impending war that
you think has just been declared is /not/ the same thing as serious
concern. The Dutch have a great love of debate and free speech and the
national outcry appears to be that this was denied to Theo van Gogh by
his murder, and quite right too. Though there is a wave of anti-Muslim
feeling at present and the Dutch party leader interviewed on the BBC was
keen to use the word "jihad", he was also keen to point out he was only
interested in hunting down fanatics and that almost all the country's
Muslims (nearly a million) were "normal people like you and me". And
they are, though you seem to think that their faith directs them towards
evil. That certain members of their faith are trying to use the
religion to do that I won't deny, but you've been pointed at plenty of
examples of that from other faiths too, yet you persist in pouring all
of your ire into one place.

You've now crossed over into making up things I didn't say and
gratuitous insults, so time to bow out here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:06:21 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Jeez! This time I count three sentences, although two of them are rather
>short. But always the mention of the ****.

Yes, and as long as the **** keeps replying, the ****'s name will keep
coming up in the attributions. Jeez, Ed, how obvious does sarcasm
have to be before you notice it?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:06:21 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Jeez! This time I count three sentences, although two of them are rather
>>short. But always the mention of the ****.
>
> Yes, and as long as the **** keeps replying, the ****'s name will keep
> coming up in the attributions. Jeez, Ed, how obvious does sarcasm
> have to be before you notice it?

Try to mix your sarcasm with some wit if you want to get my attention.
Unless and until, you are just the world's most tiresome bore.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:24:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> I prefer a country where at least people have the decency to feel
>> guilty when the poor get shafted.

>We are not going to worry too much about the poor as long as they are not
>starving to death in the streets.

I guess; corportate America does like to ensure that the genuine
starvation wages are applied only to brown folks in faraway places,
out of sight, out of mind.

>The fact is that the poor in this country
>live better than do the poor in any other country in the world including
>Europe's poor.

As long as they're not sick. Or unemployed.

>But the US has the responsibility of providing for the security of the West
>and indeed the entire world.

Only because it has arrogated it. Nobody asked, and I think quite a
few people would be perfectly happy if it dropped that role.

>Only Britain is making a contribution to the War on Terrorism (of
>which Iraq is central) that amounts to anything. That is no thanks to
>scoundrels like Guy Chapman who wouldn't lift a finger to defend anything,
>not even his own "****."

Once again you confuse opposition to illegal invasions with treason, a
common mistake among right-wing zealots.

The level of threat to my country from Saddam Hussein was
approximately zero, and the same applied to the USA. The only group
of terrorists which attacked the USA were trained and equipped by the
CIA, and anyway they attacked mainly in response to US foreign policy
****ups. So Saddam gassed the Marsh Arabs? So did Churchill. We of
the west have absolutely nothing to be smug about here, and no
justification whatever for feelings of moral supriority.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:38:34 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>All I ever go by are the words I see in front of me on the computer screen.
>Nothing else ever matters in the slightest.

Be fair, Ed - you go by only /some/ of the words you see before you.
Evidence which is against you, you have previously discounted because
although it is robust, it disagrees with you - you have told me in the
past that you are right and the evidence wrong.

It is right-wing zealots like you who are the best recruiting
sergeants for the terrorists, hence your honorary jihad-name El-Ohssa.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ogg Oggibly wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Wring your hands. Jerk.
>
> That's what /you're/ doing.

He meant Ed Dolan would like to wring your neck, you g.d. ****ing asshole!

>> I haven't heard of Hindus stoning anybody.
>
> Forms of execution and lynching tend to move across religious boundaries.
> It's that "local customs" thing again, regrettably. Note that stoning was
> quite normal in the Middle East well before Islam even existed, as you can
> find in the Bible. It is actually the God commanded death of
> transgressions of /Biblical/ law, so no particular surprise that another
> creed's Holy Book is apparently keen on it too. But just like followers
> of the Bible don't necessarily feel the need to stone people, nor does it
> it automatically follow that the Koran's devotees do. Some do, but by no
> means the majority.

Note Clinch's obsession with ancient history. He does not like to examine
what the Muslims are PRESENTLY doing in the world. I wonder why that is?

>> If you know of recent Hindu stonings I would appreciate you pointing me
>> to them. I will show no reluctance to condemn them.
>
> So you say, but you'll actually bang on and on and on and on and on and on
> and on and on some more about how dreadful Muslims and their religion are.

Who else is going around the world committing one atrocity after another? No
Hindus that I know of.

>> I thought I made that clear a while back. Give me a second and I will
>> copy and paste it here for you to read again.
>>
>> "Let me make this clear to you. I AM NOT EQUATING THE ACTIONS OF
>> EXTREMISTS
>> MUSLIMS, ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS AND CLERICS WITH ALL MUSLIMS."
>
> So you say, but then you do just what you say you don't do, by dopey
> things like saying there is a global war on. Global means everywhere and
> war is what was happening in Falluja yesterday. That is not happening
> everywhere, thus there is not a global war going on between Muslims and
> anyone else.

The Islamic extremists have struck in several countries around the world in
the last few years. Ever hear of what happened in Spain, Indonesia, various
African nations? Seems pretty global to me. If I were Guy Chapman I would at
this point tell you to get your head out of your ass (****). Consider that
you have been told as I know he hates those g.d. Muslims the same as I do.

>> "I have no problem condemning abuses of women and children be it my next
>> door
>> neighbor, a local priest, a Hindu, or an Islamic State/Nation, or
>> whoever."
>
> You say you don't have a problem doing it, but the only people you ever
> get round to condemning in actuality are Muslims.

We are waiting for those Hindus to make a splash in the world like the
Muslims have. I know if I were a Hindus living in India, I would make it my
full time job to wage war are on Muslims. My motto would be the only good
Muslim is a dead Muslim.

>> No the female child of the post graduate Muslim (why do you always feel
>> the need to mention the educational attainments of your Muslim
>> acquaintances)
>
> I work in a University so the examples I tend to meet are at University, I
> mention what they do to underline they're pretty normal people.

University people can be the dumbest people on earth. I ought to know as I
was around them for a time. A more unimpressive group of folks I have never
met in my life. I don't know what makes them so stupid because they are
literate. I think they are just constantly reading the wrong things all the
time. Kind of like Mr. Sherman that way.

>> relatively safe in Scotland which happens, I believe to be a
>> predominately Christian country which would deal harshly with the crime
>> of stoning. But let's move that educated female child, who grew up among
>> the Scottish infidels, to a Islamic Republic and her chances of being
>> stoned to death go from nil to the real possibility of becoming a Zhila.
>> It is this reality that your brain seems not to be able to accept.
>
> The reality is that most Muslims live in Muslim states and about half of
> them are female. That would be, a very conservative ballpark estimate,
> say 300 million people in significant danger of being stoned. That's self
> evidently nonsense.

There are many Muslims now living in the West which they seem to enjoy. Why
don't you as a Christian (non-Muslim) go to the heartland of Muslim-land
(Saudi Arabia) and see how you like living there. One thing I can tell you
for sure. They will never accept you unless and until you convert. You will
be a permanent freak there and essentially hated. Enjoy!

>> If you believe in civilized human rights, you should give thought, if
>> that is possible, to supporting the separation of mosque and state.
>
> I prefer disestablishment, as it happens, but OTOH the Church of England
> is an established state religion and shows that it is not necessarily a
> sure fire route to evildoing.

The Turks are just about the only Muslims who have managed a degree of
secularism in their civil society - but just barely.

>> Apparently neither does his girlfriend who doesn't want to talk about
>> what is going on in her homeland. Or maybe like Peter she is apathetic
>> about the Jihad declared in Amsterdam and feels its just another isolated
>> incidence by some bad apples whose motivations are of no interest or
>> consequence.
>
> I never said that, I said she didn't pass on the information that her
> friends and relations were quaking in their boots as they "braced for
> Jihad", probably, I surmised, because none of them told her that they
> were. Note that quaking in one's boots because of an impending war that
> you think has just been declared is /not/ the same thing as serious
> concern. The Dutch have a great love of debate and free speech and the
> national outcry appears to be that this was denied to Theo van Gogh by his
> murder, and quite right too. Though there is a wave of anti-Muslim
> feeling at present and the Dutch party leader interviewed on the BBC was
> keen to use the word "jihad", he was also keen to point out he was only
> interested in hunting down fanatics and that almost all the country's
> Muslims (nearly a million) were "normal people like you and me". And they
> are, though you seem to think that their faith directs them towards evil.
> That certain members of their faith are trying to use the religion to do
> that I won't deny, but you've been pointed at plenty of examples of that
> from other faiths too, yet you persist in pouring all of your ire into one
> place.

If there are already a million Muslim emigrants in the Netherlands, then
that means the Dutch will soon be a minority in their own country. It will
serve them right too. The churches will all become mosques and the Dutch
will not be welcome in their own country. That folks is what is known as a
revolting situation.

But Clinch is all for it. He is no doubt already thinking about converting
to Islam. He will soon be praying five times a day with his head to the
ground and his ass to the air. This will suit him because he is nothing if
not an ostrich anyway. If he gets married and has a daughter and he catches
her fooling around with a boy, he will be all for stoning the horrible
little ***** to death for dishonoring him.

> You've now crossed over into making up things I didn't say and gratuitous
> insults, so time to bow out here.

Jesus Christ! You still here? Get the **** gone why don't you - and don't
come back, you crazy screwball Muslim sympathizer. May Allah have a hundred
camels cover you with dung and **** and blow spit in your ugly face.

--
****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 01:38:34 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>All I ever go by are the words I see in front of me on the computer
>>screen.
>>Nothing else ever matters in the slightest.
>
> Be fair, Ed - you go by only /some/ of the words you see before you.
> Evidence which is against you, you have previously discounted because
> although it is robust, it disagrees with you - you have told me in the
> past that you are right and the evidence wrong.

No, we are just disagreeing about what constitutes relevant evidence. And
then I always go on to say that evidence by itself is next to nothing. It
has to be interpreted and put into a larger scheme of things in order to
make sense of it. You are in awe of evidence. I treat it with the contempt
that it deserves until it has been properly analyzed (by me of course). All
uneducated people have way too much respect for evidence and never know how
to treat it. You are lucky to know someone like me.

> It is right-wing zealots like you who are the best recruiting
> sergeants for the terrorists, hence your honorary jihad-name El-Ohssa.

It is far better to be a right wing zealot than a left wing zealot as the
former has an honorable history in the annals of mankind where as the latter
has a very dishonorable history, especially in recent times. You work your
side of the street and I will work my side of the street.

Arab terrorists are made in their own miserable societies and it has nothing
to do with the West. OBL's real target is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not
the US.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:24:28 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I prefer a country where at least people have the decency to feel
>>> guilty when the poor get shafted.
>
>>We are not going to worry too much about the poor as long as they are not
>>starving to death in the streets.
>
> I guess; corportate America does like to ensure that the genuine
> starvation wages are applied only to brown folks in faraway places,
> out of sight, out of mind.

Every nation in the world is sovereign. That is what constitutes the very
definition of a nation. It was Britain that had colonies. We Americans were
never really into that much.

>>The fact is that the poor in this country
>>live better than do the poor in any other country in the world including
>>Europe's poor.
>
> As long as they're not sick. Or unemployed.

The unemployed are taken care of fairly well, at least temporarily. But I
will admit that there has to be a better way of paying for health care than
the present system that prevails here. I do part company with the
conservatives and the Republicans on this issue.

>>But the US has the responsibility of providing for the security of the
>>West
>>and indeed the entire world.
>
> Only because it has arrogated it. Nobody asked, and I think quite a
> few people would be perfectly happy if it dropped that role.

Europe has been given a free ride ever since the conclusion of WW II. I
think the US may shortly withdraw from Europe as the threats are now
emanating from elsewhere in the world. But the US, as the only remaining
super power, will continue to have world responsibilities for the
foreseeable future. The US became a super power almost without realizing it.
The world would be a total mess if it weren't for the US. And Europe would
not be nearly so prosperous either if it weren't for the US.

>>Only Britain is making a contribution to the War on Terrorism (of
>>which Iraq is central) that amounts to anything. That is no thanks to
>>scoundrels like Guy Chapman who wouldn't lift a finger to defend anything,
>>not even his own "****."
>
> Once again you confuse opposition to illegal invasions with treason, a
> common mistake among right-wing zealots.

You are not on the right side in the War on Terrorism. Because you aren't
you are in effect betraying the West and your natural heritage. It is really
quite shameful.

> The level of threat to my country from Saddam Hussein was
> approximately zero, and the same applied to the USA. The only group
> of terrorists which attacked the USA were trained and equipped by the
> CIA, and anyway they attacked mainly in response to US foreign policy
> ****ups. So Saddam gassed the Marsh Arabs? So did Churchill. We of
> the west have absolutely nothing to be smug about here, and no
> justification whatever for feelings of moral supriority.

The entire above paragraph is too stupid for words - and so ... no words.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Ogg Oggibly]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

>> You've now crossed over into making up things I didn't say and
> gratuitous insults, so time to bow out here.
>

Cool. Go work on the computer network. Take care of yourself and don't
loose your head.

Ogg O

Sig - Leftist seem willing to support Islamic states that aim to destroy
human freedom, enslave women, persecute Jews and other minority religions,
and wage jihad on civilazation.

 

[Frank Olson]

"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:15:46 -0600 "Edward Dolan"
>> used 138 lines of text to write in newsgroup:
>> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>>
>>>You may yet force me to go to a dictionary
>>>of invective to get some new names to call you. Just calling you an idiot
>>>doesn't do justice to what you are.
>>
>>
>> http://www.mikegallay.com/prisspec.html
>
> Many thanks Graham. You have come to my rescue just in the nick of time as
> I am running out of words to throw at the cretins infesting this
> newsgroup. I will save that web site to my Favorites and will resort to it
> as the occasion demands. Look for some new and fresh name calling from me
> in the near future.
>


Heh... Mike Gallay's a Canadian... I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's
a Liberal to boot... Way to go Ed!!!

 

[Frank Olson]

"G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:11:34 GMT "Frank Olson"
> used 196 lines of text to write in newsgroup:
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>
>>L. Ron Hubbard did it... I figure I can come up with a religion for
>>idiots
>>too...
>
>
> Isn't that the same kind of generalization you're accusing Ed of?


Not at all... My hat's off to Mr. Hubbard (the founder of the "Church" of
Scientology). If you read how he did it, you'll see it's a lot easier
"founding" a church than it is bringing the monster to life... Drat!! Now
you've got me comparing "religion" to Frankenstein's monster... What will
Ed make of *this*?? )

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:47:19 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> I guess; corportate America does like to ensure that the genuine
>> starvation wages are applied only to brown folks in faraway places,
>> out of sight, out of mind.

>Every nation in the world is sovereign. That is what constitutes the very
>definition of a nation. It was Britain that had colonies. We Americans were
>never really into that much.

We had colonisation, you have Coca-Colanisation. It's the same thing
but with worse teeth.

>>>The fact is that the poor in this country
>>>live better than do the poor in any other country in the world including
>>>Europe's poor.

>> As long as they're not sick. Or unemployed.

>The unemployed are taken care of fairly well, at least temporarily.

Until they get sick, you mean? ;-)

>But I
>will admit that there has to be a better way of paying for health care than
>the present system that prevails here. I do part company with the
>conservatives and the Republicans on this issue.

Pleased to hear it.

>>>But the US has the responsibility of providing for the security of the
>>>West and indeed the entire world.

>> Only because it has arrogated it. Nobody asked, and I think quite a
>> few people would be perfectly happy if it dropped that role.

>Europe has been given a free ride ever since the conclusion of WW II.

Really? I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to the service
widows. Since the Coronation, over half a century ago, there has only
been one year in which no British serviceman has been killd on active
service.

> I
>think the US may shortly withdraw from Europe as the threats are now
>emanating from elsewhere in the world.

Translation: now you no longer need "the world's largest aircraft
carrier" aka Airstrip One.

>But the US, as the only remaining
>super power, will continue to have world responsibilities for the
>foreseeable future.

Not really. Your government might choose to see themselves as the
world's Wyatt Earp, but very often US intervention is heavy-handed and
causes more pain than it solves. Look at the Balkans and the Middle
East for example.

>> Once again you confuse opposition to illegal invasions with treason, a
>> common mistake among right-wing zealots.

>You are not on the right side in the War on Terrorism. Because you aren't
>you are in effect betraying the West and your natural heritage. It is really
>quite shameful.

Once again you confuse opposition to illegal invasions with treason, a
common mistake among right-wing zealots.

I was against terrorism back int he days when the CIA was running the
terorrists, and I'm still against it now. Bombing the **** out of
civilians is not a proven route to reducing terrorism.

>> The level of threat to my country from Saddam Hussein was
>> approximately zero, and the same applied to the USA. The only group
>> of terrorists which attacked the USA were trained and equipped by the
>> CIA, and anyway they attacked mainly in response to US foreign policy
>> ****ups. So Saddam gassed the Marsh Arabs? So did Churchill. We of
>> the west have absolutely nothing to be smug about here, and no
>> justification whatever for feelings of moral supriority.

>The entire above paragraph is too stupid for words - and so ... no words.

The entire paragraph is true. Saddam posed NO threat to my country,
and NO threat to the US.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:24:02 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>All I ever go by are the words I see in front of me on the computer
>>>screen. Nothing else ever matters in the slightest.

>> Be fair, Ed - you go by only /some/ of the words you see before you.
>> Evidence which is against you, you have previously discounted because
>> although it is robust, it disagrees with you - you have told me in the
>> past that you are right and the evidence wrong.

>No, we are just disagreeing about what constitutes relevant evidence.

Not really. The first time we had this conversation you told me you
didn't care about evidence, because you knew you were right (even
though the evidence clearly showed you were wrong). I don't see a lot
of change since.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:07:55 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Yes, and as long as the **** keeps replying, the ****'s name will keep
>> coming up in the attributions. Jeez, Ed, how obvious does sarcasm
>> have to be before you notice it?

>Try to mix your sarcasm with some wit if you want to get my attention.
>Unless and until, you are just the world's most tiresome bore.

Oh no, Ed, you are nowhere close to losing that crown yet, don't
worry.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University