BS: Unfit for SCOTUS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 07:29 PM

Bill. You make the point that you do not consider yourself atheist. Fair point.

Atheism is two things in my book.

1. The antithesis of theism.

2. A sneering term of reference used by people who feel they are in some sanctimonious club, and the "atheist" isn't.

Regarding point 1., most people in The UK have never considered theism in order to have a position, and that by the way is an almost verbatim quote from Rowan Williams, a retired Archbishop of Canterbury. My experience working in The USA is that faith is seen by many to be the norm, and here, the opposite. Not universal, but enough to draw a norm conclusion.

Regarding point 2., I find that those who need to bolster a shaken faith in supernatural phenomenon and ascribe it to their version of a god tend to feel better by thinking themselves superior to normal people. Hence the danger of the US judge who can't differentiate between fact and fantasy, but thinks that qualifies him to a position of trust and assessment of others.

Me? Irreligious. Just like the vast majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 06:00 PM

ake: " it is perfectly possible for any rational person, either religious, atheist, or agnostic, to be opposed to "abortion on demand"
But it is also possible for rational persons of all those types to be in favor of the "freedom to choose". The common attitude is that abortion is almost always unfortunate & regrettable, but sometimes necessary. My view is that because rational people can disagree, free choice is the only rational rule to follow. No one should be forced or intimidated to undergo an abortion, but neither should they be prevented from it by those who disagree.


Pete.."... you seem to support the discrimination against bible believers in public office. "

That is not what I said. I said...or tried to say.. that those in public office should not use their religious beliefs in administering their office. Please understand that "bible believers" does not necessarily mean the most fundamentalist ones... such as you. There are many judges, members of Congress and clerks who consider themselves to be good Christians, but who are not Creationists, and who do not assume that the Bible is the final, official word on matters of conscience.
Once again, because even rational believers in various religions differ in their interpretations, the rule should be that *choice* is involved, and that the most conservative view is not the only reasonable view. (Isn't that easy to understand when seeing what the most conservative Muslims sometimes do in the name of their religion?)

When Scalia implies that his religious beliefs may influence his legal decisions, it indicates something beyond just rational disagreement. As I have said often, there are reasons why the word "belief" is used for certain things. If I were to assault you, saying that I 'believe' that you are possessed by demons, I assume you'd want to be defended on the grounds that I have no reasonable proof of such beliefs. My right to act on some beliefs ends where YOUR rights begin... and THAT is why fundamentalist religious beliefs should not be allowed to be imposed on those who do not accept them... and why those who deny various scientific findings should not be in positions where they can restrict what science tells us is good for people in general. They can try to DO science, but if they begin with a settled view of how the answers must be arranged, they are not actually doing science.

(and by the way... I have never called myself an atheist. I am a skeptic.... and a rationalist who has not seen what my reason tells me are good reasons for most religious beliefs)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 05:58 PM

I don't know what counts for reading on Planet 7, but I did not criticise Scalia having a religious belief. He'd be a better man without one, but that is not the point. I criticised his appearing to recognise total stupidity as valid.

OldTwat - you don't appear to have a leg left to stand on - and at your age your third leg is not going to add much to a tripod. Mind you I'd rather fuck myself than fuck you. A much better class of company. You are a living demonstration of George III's admirable statement that Americans have not yet demonstrated that they are fit to rule themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 05:51 PM

Gibberish.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 05:42 PM

on reflection, modette, it was a poor expression to convey the thought. after all, I don't know any evangelical Christian who is anywhere near as pushy and intolerant as the atheists here that keep pushing their beliefs. maybe, I should prefix...ultra... to evangelical, when speaking of these atheists. apart from a few, in the past , started by keith, the plethora of threads on religion and origins has been started by the usual atheist suspects. I am happy to oblige them though, it will be evident to anyone at all neutral, or of good will, that there is a lot of talk about facts and rationality from them, but little substantiation of those claims.
thank goodness we not got that lot " making decisions that effect the lives of millions !" they cant tell the difference between observable, experimental , testable science like gravity, and the interpretative and unobservable science of origins.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 04:30 PM

Musket: "Goofus. We don't worship the royal family."

No, you just have them hanging around.....sorta like a crucifix on the wall of a Catholic Church.
Don't feel bad, though, over here lot's of people worship the Kardasians...however, I don't know any of them!
Speaking of 'celebrities' the media created one during the election of Obama....sorta like the Kardasians, again!...(How'd that turn out?).

Olddude, though I agree with some of your sentiments toward Dick Bridge, you ought lighten up on him. The more you feed it the more it grows. You don't want to start sounding like Greg F., do you???
Love ya', though!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 04:03 PM

Goofus. We don't worship the royal family. However, we keep the show on the road because foreigners, especially Americans do worship them. Trust me.. The Chinese factories that make Union Jack T shirts and plastic Big Bens would shut tomorrow without Wilbur and Myrtle III Jr.

Why do superstitious people assume rational thought to be a superstition itself? It's as if they are ashamed of their hobby at the intellectual level. Hope for em yet.

Pete seems to be wittering about pond life again. When I hear of senior church leaders covering up child abuse, I note that the journey from pond life to intelligent humans is a multi speed evolution. Some haven't got very far yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 02:42 PM

You know what, I really like you guys and you are my friends. Even if you mistakenly follow shit for brains Richard once in a while. Yeah I know, a good Christian guy would not use such
LLanguage. Howeve , who said I was good.

You are a sick fuck Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 02:31 PM

Reality Check: At bottom, this thread started out as, and at bottom is not aout pro or anti religion, pro or anti - "personal belief".

It is about the fact that persons who have demonstrated themselves to be idiots should not be placed in positions of responsibility, making decisions that effect the lives of millions.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 02:07 PM

Some of the finest people I met here were atheists. I call them brothers. Did you brits ever hear will fly rail against another's personal belief. Never because he respects all people. Would be nice if more people were like will or art thieme. It gets old people, you can only push others so far

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:59 PM

Sorry, No one has ever been able to translate pete's posts into English.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:58 PM

So pete, what's your take on the theory of gravity?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:58 PM

What on earth are 'evangelical atheists'? Can someone please translate Pete's post into English, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:58 PM

The only people I know that are intolerant of the belief of others is the church of atheistism. They would throw out the first admendment. Mudcat is a prime example of it. You don't see threads started daily by people here of faith railing against them. Nope, because most of us believe faith is a personal matter with free will being most important. Not so for and asshole like Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:56 PM

Whatever judge , bill, has some kind of belief that may possibly colour his judgment. I am glad you are not one, since you seem to support the discrimination against bible believers in public office. I am disappointed you take that line, as I had thought you a more moderate atheist

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:43 PM

Richards post especially is bluff and bluster. There is , and has been considerable discontent and questioning of the validity of the Darwinian dogma.   And it has not just been from yec,s , of which many are very well qualified , and offer scientific defence of creation. Going down the scale, there are the id,ears, then there is the altburg synposium, which was a group of leading evolutionists apparently trying to find a new way, since the old dogma is done with. And then there is a list of scientists registered as Darwin doubters. Richard try's to imply that dating methods settle it , yet even he says....can be..., not definitely that age. Fact is, they are all interpretations of the data, and sometimes there has been massive age reading differences.   The so called ...fact....of evolution is far from it, and the succession of threads started by the evangelical atheists is only evidence for my charge, since they have not been able to substantiate that bluff and bluster. Go on Richard , give me one piece of indisputable evidence that validates microbes to mudcatters evolution. I

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:43 PM

Dear Richard,
Go fuck yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 01:18 PM

olldude has it pretty well dialed in....far above our Brit egocentric maniacs, who still worship their monarch and family.
We in America fought to get away from that type of rule....and then bailed out the Brits when they were about to get the shit kicked out of them...along with the rest of Europe...only to be taken out by another threat, the one of financial take over. To accomplish this goal, they exacerbate every 'injustice' or 'perceived injustice', and even make them up, and politicize them, to being about their tyranny of control.
Just take a look at it.
This is all a cultural backlash to the industrial revolution. Now we are dealing with the technological revolution and the backlash to that. It is a power grab, being felt by most....and by the way, 'religion' means, (literally) 'a way of life'. is politics a 'way of life'??...is greed???.....is being purposely stupid???
Talk about 'fantasy world!!!
The list of 'religions' could go on.

You've got yours, other people have theirs....I guess it defines itself by what you 'worship' and serve. Some people worship their opinions...based on reality or not!!!

THINK about it.......if your false (Gods) of unfounded opinions don't get in the way.....but then, who do you serve?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 12:24 PM

Bill, it is perfectly possible for any rational person, either religious, atheist, or agnostic, to be opposed to "abortion on demand"

In my opinion, "abortion on demand" is a crime.

Of course I do not oppose abortion in all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 12:03 PM

Dan, his faith is his own personal business.

I have no objection to an individual electing the faith that seems most valuable to him or her.

But when you take on the robes of justice, your faith must be anchored in people and the law. Otherwise you cast the seeds of dissent and disunion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 11:52 AM

olddude says: "The supreme court has all kinds of people all of which uphold the constitution even when it goes against their private beliefs. There would be no abortion or gay marriage or anything else if that wasn't true."

Sadly, that is not quite accurate, nor has it ever been. Abortion was not approved by all of the judges in Roe.v. Wade.

The problem is as noted in the article.... judges are chosen from people, and there is/was wide disagreement as to whether the Constitution even says anything to warrant a decision:

"Opponents of Roe have asserted that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.[50] Like the dissenters in Roe, they have maintained that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[51]"

Now, note what that implies.... opponents of abortion are suggesting that they wish the question to be decided locally... as if people in Alabama get to follow a different standard than those in Oregon- just because the 'majority' is more conservative (which usually means Christian fundamentalist). Right now, various conservative states are inventing ways to get around Roe v. Wade by artificially applying laws & rules which restrict the freedom of doctors & clinics to operate. They don't try to overturn Roe... they just run clinics out of business with arbitrary... and usually unfair... requirements. They deny rights granted by the 14th Amendment using rules that are irrelevant to the actual issue. In some cases, a woman in one state can legally request an abortion, while her sister across the river cannot. This IS de facto inserting religion into judicial decisions in ways that SCOTUS can't easily defeat. It is imposing the beliefs of one group onto all groups.
   



Pete says: "bill, why should a public figures beliefs be private, if he is happy they are public. and if that figure is a Christian, profession of his beliefs is part of that faith anyway. I know we differ, but I am surprised if you agree with the ridiculous idea, that this judge [ however elevated ] should be disqualified for believing in creation [ if he actually does - and I hope so ]. I am sure the atheists would be screaming blue murder if Christian America suggested the same about evolutionist judges !."

Well Pete, what I believe is that judges should be chosen according to their rationality. And even though some folks wish to assert that there are 'rational' ways to defend the more conservative aspects of Creationism, this is **NOT** the majority view. Most scientists (as I and others have noted before here) understand & accept that evolution is a rational way of explaining the status of life as we find it.
   Judges are appointed ... and sometimes voted into office... to be fair & reasonable and apply the law- and even YOU will know of instances where they make rulings based on personal whim, careless reading of the law, bribery...etc.
   When bad rulings are appealed in the US, SCOTUS is the ultimate recourse. If they can get 5 members to refuse to hear an appeal, or to rule in ways that negate the opinions of the majority of citizens, we have a problem. The real problem is that Liberal vs. Conservative is not just two sides of the coin, like preferring pie to cake... but in the basic ways the two sides approach decision making. A very conservative judge, often because OF religious beliefs, may rule in fundamentally non-rational ways. When he does so, he is likely to be considered as unfit to BE a judge. If he hides the source of his opinions well by simple rationalizing about the law, he may continue with only suspicions as to his private beliefs, but when he makes statements like Scalia did, his basic competence to BE a judge is called into question!
Now.... there is no easy way to deal with this. The SCOTUS justices are appointed by presidents we VOTE for and approved by senators we VOTE for, which seems like a great way for 'the people' to have basic control over the process, but in the last few years...especially since 2010, when the Republicans controlled how voter districts are apportioned... attempts have been made to deny voting rights to those who are more likely to vote for Liberal senators.
You see? If the very process of getting fair & rational judges is undermined by UNfair & IRrational means, then judges like Scalia will be in a position to flout the Constitution at will and to flaunt their opinions openly.

If this debate were about ingredients in ground meat instead of abortion & gay marriage and similar topics, you'd see quickly that court rulings in favor of companies that try to sneak in dangerous additives to ground meat were irrational & unfair. Why not make the process of getting fair judgments into ALL issues work better?

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 10:18 AM

Guess it ain't just us:

Sunday, Jun 14, 2015 06:00 AM EST
Antonin Scalia is unfit to serve: A justice who rejects science and the law for religion is of unsound mind
The justice claims to be an originalist, but his real loyalty is to religion and a phony man in the sky

Article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 07:35 AM

Fuck, the post eater has done it again.

PiddlyDee – you forget that much Mudcat data was scrambled in the great (mudcat) crash. If you READ it, it's pretty obvious that that was not my first ever post to Mudcat.

OldTwat: you appear to have lost the ability to read accurately or to think. Judges use logic to interpret and apply the evidence and the law. In doing this they reach conclusions of fact. A judge who cannot or will not do that is unfit. A judge who deliberately ignores the vast body of the evidence - evidence about which there is NO serious scientific controversy or doubt - and gives comfort to falsehood is unfit. A judge who gives comfort to creationism is deluded or mentally ill.

The earth is not 5,000 years old, nor 50,000 years old, nor 5 million years old. It's about 4.5 BILLION years old. The first signs of evolutionary change that eventually lead to mankind are something like 4.5 million years old. Lucy can be dated to about 3.2 million years old. Recent publications discuss evolutionary changes in jaw structure about 400,000 years before that.

ANYONE who believes in creationism is stupid, deluded (by religious fantasy or otherwise) or mentally ill.

And if, OldTwat, you can find a moment of clarity in your mental fog, stop to consider that being supported by Akenhateon is not a badge of merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 05:43 AM

Well, Dan, a judge is a person whose job is to weigh evidence. This particular person has shown, by embracing creationism, that he does not have the ability to do that. No- one is saying that only infallible human beings should be judges, but this man does not possess the main fundamental skill required for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 05:35 AM

OD...I admire your stance tremendously....wish some of the others here were prepared to stand up to these bullies....good man!

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 05:32 AM

It is my considered opinion, that most people of faith are neither stupid nor unintelligent.

I cannot say the same for the sector of the population who follow the media lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 03:51 AM

Having faith is one thing.

Not being able to differentiate it from reality is another.

Inflicting it on intelligent people?

The leaders you speak of Dan, they fit in comfortably with the first. They had been brought up to fit in with the second.

When people were more simple, less educated and had no reason not to believe in fantasy as real, law making with a superstitious angle wasn't an issue as everybody was comfortable with it.

Society, even in The USA, is more sophisticated now.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 02:29 AM

Like I said before, I would have no problem if any atheist had a track record of upholding the constitution was appointed. If they are qualified. Because in your bigotry, you don't get it that it's not about religion. It's about the constitution and mainly the bill of rights. People do their job and uphold the law if they have a lifetime track record of doing so. You don't get nominated for political favor. Not in the supreme court you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 02:18 AM

People of faith who have studied the constitution have rendered more than a few opinions that are directly contrary to their beliefs. Why, because their oath is to uphold the constitution and they have for more than 200 years. However, you want someone who would throw out the first admendment because of your atheist religion. Explain how that works.. Because it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 02:07 AM

Every president since Washington was a man of some type of faith. Every justice of the supreme court has been men or women of some faith. If the path of atheistism is a complete disregard for the first admendment then I would not hold my breath waiting for oneof your non faith candidates to be appointed to anything. You see when the guy was asked about his belief, he answered truthfully. The law is the law, he is absolutely qualified to render law opinions. He is not asking to be a bishop in a church. He is entitled to his belief without discrimination from a group of atheists bigots who hate others with faith. Mudcat is the perfect example of of the intolerance of most atheists. Hence it Is you who are unfit for office.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 15 - 12:47 AM

We believe in the separation of church and State. A man entrusted with the highest discrimination on Constitutional Law has no business injecting religion into the discussion, beyond identifying it as beyond the pale. To do so is to disqualify oneself as a constitutional advocate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 09:09 PM

I know! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 08:32 PM

That comment were aimed at pete, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 06:53 PM

I was being ironic, Greg. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 06:26 PM

There is no such thing as "Christian America", any more than there is Hindu Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 06:08 PM

I am sure the atheists would be screaming blue murder if Christian America suggested the same about evolutionist judges !.

We scream blue murder when Christian America suggests it about science teachers who tell their children about the truth of evolution. As a total stranger to the truth, pete, you wouldn't get that.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 05:56 PM

So society's problems are because of rejection of superstition pete?

Rejection of your weird nonsense led to a fairer society in the first place. We don't need misogyny, homophobia, bigotry or child abuse, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 05:20 PM

bill, why should a public figures beliefs be private, if he is happy they are public. and if that figure is a Christian, profession of his beliefs is part of that faith anyway. I know we differ, but I am surprised if you agree with the ridiculous idea, that this judge [ however elevated ] should be disqualified for believing in creation [ if he actually does - and I hope so ]. I am sure the atheists would be screaming blue murder if Christian America suggested the same about evolutionist judges !.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 04:57 PM

well, having read the article, I would say that I agree with her , but that article quoting her, only suggested it as a possibility , in light of what the bible contains, and seemed far from definite in ascribing the drought as divine retribution. it is of course a tangent thrown in by greg, but I suppose not entirely of no relevance, since abortion on demand [ and other things once thought unacceptable ]are a natural consequence of a rejection of religious/Christian faith, and the embracing of evolutionary belief that views people as merely rearranged pond scum.
but to go back.....why should a judge [ possibly a creationist ] be blasted for expressing/hinting at, his belief.    in fact , if he is consistent with his Christian profession, he will be a more faithful judge. I suppose that if he had said what you atheists believe, that would make him a worthy judge !. but why,- he might get an evolutionary advantage by being dishonest, and course, as long as he could get away with it, he would have no god to answer to ?!
steve, is right though, that democracy means you can get a groundswell of opinion to change things if possible....but of course that goes both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 01:52 PM

Ah, PeeDee, you 12-year-old silver tongued devil, you!

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:41 PM

Lol priceless, I like everyone ake. I take no offense when insulated back, even from the dick head Richard. He can't help it he is a dick head. He was born that way

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:34 PM

He's got merr faces thin Big Ben.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:32 PM

Marriage describing a sexual relationship? Too much information Akenaton. Unlike you when talking of gay couples, the bedroom activities of married people aren't the sort of thoughts healthy people have.

Mind you, marriage can indeed change a sexual relationship. They reckon the best way to stop a woman from giving you a blow job is to marry her... Personally of course, I wouldn't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:29 PM

Which one do you like OD?    ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:28 PM

As long as everyone's happy . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: olddude
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 12:20 PM

Steve you certainly can my friend. Your one of the good guys. Hey Richard bite me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: pdq
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 11:53 AM

...here is a classic post from Greg Feces:


Subject: RE: BS: Cultural genocide
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:09 AM

Not so, Keith- YOU deserve to be persecuted. Killed? I'm not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 11:39 AM

I think you mean pathetic, PeeDee - much like yourself.

Now, back to the topic under consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: pdq
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 10:55 AM

...here is post that proves Gargoyle to be prophetic:

Subject: RE: Welcome New catter Steve Shaw From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 16 May 07 - 09:43 PM

Stevie boy - stay on yur island

There are lots and lots of webfolks that welcome yur type.

Find them. Seek them out. Prim them. Cultivate your kindred kind.

Don't come here. We are AMERICAN folk, blues, jazz, and most of the drivel contributed by the UK contingent is worthy of a piss-pot initiation to Friar Tuck's Band of Morris Dancers.

Sincerely, Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Unfit for SCOTUS
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 15 - 09:29 AM

Anyone here agree with her? P.......