|
10 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM (#1457022) Subject: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST I feel much better now, thanks. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 09:18 AM (#1457027) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg Secucrats, wouldn't it be? -Ists and -Crats seldom engage. -Ists like other -Ists, and -Crats prefer -Crats. ~S~ |
|
10 Apr 05 - 09:21 AM (#1457029) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Severn To a bloody pulp? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 09:24 AM (#1457033) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST No Susan, I meant theocrats. Isn't it time for the preacher's wife to be getting ready for Sunday services, dearie? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 09:54 AM (#1457053) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg This preacher's wife has her own ministries, on Saturday night; my Sunday ministries are not based at the church. And I was commenting not on your use of the word "theocrat" but on "secularist." You're more interwested in arguing with me than in the clarity of your own point? :~) ~Susan |
|
10 Apr 05 - 09:57 AM (#1457056) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST And I thought you said in the other thread you didn't have time for any of this nonsense today Susan! Jaysus you are deeply threatened by secularists aren't you? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 09:59 AM (#1457058) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg I'm getting plenty of things done this AM, thanks so much for your concern, nameless one! ~S~ |
|
10 Apr 05 - 10:01 AM (#1457061) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Like I said, you sure are threatened by the presence of secularists in your midst, Susan. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 10:39 AM (#1457090) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg Actually I am a bit of a secularist myself. As are most of my friends. As has been most of my career. As is my training in (and teaching of) a specific form of peer counseling. :~) (Each of which I have posted about many times before at Mudcat.) This is the problem when one (Guest) over-simplifies in order to tear down. What a waste of effort, when the world neeeds a more positive focus in general, secularly and theologically. But I do love it when a GUEST proves my points for me. ~S~ |
|
10 Apr 05 - 10:40 AM (#1457091) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Amos Usually, secularists don't mind what religionists beklive int heir religions. While many religionists get very upset that secularists do not subscribe to their version of truth. It is unusual to see this sort of backlash, even from a chest-beating cipher. It's like hearing a strange sound coming out of thin air. A |
|
10 Apr 05 - 10:51 AM (#1457103) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Actually, as a secularist I do mind what religionists believe. I have a whole lot less problem with certain religions than I do others, and again a whole lot less problem with certain factions of certain religions than others. But as a non-religious American Freethinker secularist, I am deeply concerned with the theocratic takeover of the US body politic by cynical power mongerers using fundamentalist fananticism to further their very personal agendas. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM (#1457119) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST One of the most untouchable issues in American politics is the damaging proposition, deliberately fostered by government leaders, that religious devotion and patriotism are inseparable. These past few weeks we have seen an awful lot of that sort of damage occurring. A large part of the problem is the utter lack of fairness in reporting from the secular perspectives in American society. This unholy alliance of religious devotion and patriotism is completely tied up in the current push to theocratize the US government in ways our Constitution forbids. But when we have no secular defenders of the Constitution being allowed to speak through the mass media and thereby reach a mass audience, who do we expect to defend us, our Constitution, and our way of life from these religious/political demagogues? The pope? Not likely. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 11:50 AM (#1457147) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Amos From a letter to Dave Farber's IP List on a related topic: "Some religionists, feeling one way or feeling another, are unwilling to keep their religions private. The commons of civic discourse may be fed by feelings but in the final analysis, it is best served by reason, and our Constitutional tradition is that that reason is bounded in its concerns to the secular—including the emotional, unavoidably, but placing religion behind a Jeffersonian "wall of separation". There is reason for doing this which is both good and sufficient, since it is demonstrable that differing religious views are irreconcilable in their basic nature, and cannot be particularly tested. It is also historically true that the glib and irrational use of religious icons and notions to justify irrational courses of action is a peculiarly human pox. Studying that religion exists, and what it does or does not say in a comparative framework is innocuous enough on the face of it, and your friend is right that Christmas deserves as much analysis as Kwanzaa or Ramadan. But whether one or another adherent of any given religion feels his non-secular, religious beliefs are given sufficient honor by those who do not share them is pretty irrelevant under the doctrine of separation. He/she may find solace in congregation, or meditation, or prayer in a private moment. Not in debate on the commons." A |
|
10 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM (#1457157) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D I wish I believed in Hell, so I could tell some 'guests' to go there. Being a secularist myself, I find some on my side of the issue who make me wish they were not. I will never understand why it seems necessary to be insulting and condescending to those whose basic beliefs you disagree with....though I DO understand why it's done under a cloak of anonymity. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 12:16 PM (#1457164) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST My, my. A man with sensibilities as dainty as a hothouse flower. I suppose it shocks you too, to know that not all of us secularists are liberals in search of "common ground" with the enemies of civil society. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 12:27 PM (#1457175) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Big Mick Naw ..... no shock there .... except that you are the most uncivil person I have seen use that term. No one here has ever asked you to not state your position. But some, myself included have asked you to do it in a civil manner. That, apparently is beyond you. What comes out is that you are a bitter person, who obviously has some real or imagined axe to grind, so you do it under the cloak of anonymity, and further you hide behind a ragged air of superiority. It is so ragged that folks that might otherwise agree with you, Bill D (it seems) and myself included. You are just a nasty person, so fire away. But you fool no one. Mick |
|
10 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM (#1457196) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Go right ahead nameless guest. For the couple of eejits unable to follow a discussion without you naming yourself flopsy wopsy, there are many more of us who enjoy your postings. Uncivil? Nasty? No, just presenting an opposite point of view in a very articulate manner. If those who have a problem with that, find themselves compelled to read your posts, which are clearly marked as guest, and then equally compelled to post the obligatory 'nameless guest' rant, they have more issues than they could cope with. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:23 PM (#1457228) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Thanks for the props Guest 12:48 PM. Those Mudcat members who go off on their 'nameless guest' rants don't cope very well at all, do they? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:29 PM (#1457235) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D we cope just fine...we still recognize cowardly rudeness when we see it, and if you can BE rude, we can point it out. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:32 PM (#1457240) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: John Hardly "Usually, secularists don't mind what religionists beklive int heir religions." Ha ha ha! I can tell from your typing that you nearly choked on that BS!! (some things seem as true as they are not.) |
|
10 Apr 05 - 01:41 PM (#1457252) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Trouble is bill, your idea of cowardly rudeness is only shared by a few people on here, all who will fight their corner to the death while unable to accept others. And when you realise the 'we have been here forever and what we say is right' speech isn't getting the message across, you resort to your pet peeve. Not only predictable, but boring. All the rest of us who aren't mortally offended by the lack of a name, are sure sick of your constant whinging. Wake up tomorrow and try and not open a guest post. Go on really try, do us all a favour. Or will you continue banging on about guests until you implode? The world doesn't always run the way we would like it to. No matter how many times I wish I could see a double rainbow, I don't get in a hissy fit when one doesn't appear. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:13 PM (#1457277) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D One does not "open a guest post" one opens a thread and finds anonymous posts. There is no way to know that subject has been started by a rude coward OR been coopted by them until you are reading. So, fine..be "sick of my whinging" *grin* ...you can always don't read it, if I understand your logic correctly. (We have a lot of unregistered posters, but most of them pick a name so that guests 1-27 can easily be told apart during a complex discussion..only a few take perverse pleasure in the idea that THEIR posts are so clear and unique that they don't need an identity, even a fake one) |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:19 PM (#1457284) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Bill do you ever get tired of typing that? We get tired of reading it. Perverse pleasure? Jeeze some of you need to get a life. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:23 PM (#1457290) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: John Hardly "we"? ...as in "all guests"? What? You've united? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:27 PM (#1457293) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Yes John. We are assembling in an outdoor arena to plan more perverse pleasure anyday now. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:37 PM (#1457300) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST "When you know to laugh and when to look upon things as too absurd to take seriously, the other person is ashamed to carry through even if he was serious about it." --Eleanor Roosevelt I've always applied that philosophy to the whole guest bashing phenomenon here at Mudcat. GO SECULARISTS! |
|
10 Apr 05 - 02:48 PM (#1457314) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D That's not a 'philosophy', that's a speculation, and a fairly vague point. (Sure I get tired of typing that....maybe you'll wear out first an BE someone.) |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM (#1457339) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Honest bill we won't. So please, either you deprogramme your mind, or copy and paste the same bit into every thread where you have been disagreed with by a guest. You see the problem is YOU are telling us how to post, we are NOT telling you how to post. So accept the fact that nothing you repeat ad nauseum will change our decision. In fact to prove your point you could drop the bill bit, nobody will harass you, unless you can't stop harassing yourself? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:12 PM (#1457340) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST We are all someone BillD. You just don't need to know who in order to carry on in an internet chat forum where most of us are strangers to one another in the 3D world. But I promise, if I ever meet a BillD in person, I'll be sure to introduce myself as Anon. OK? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:16 PM (#1457347) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,Seneschal And some poeple's religion is Secularism, showing their true colors after all. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:21 PM (#1457350) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Oh stop with the right wing labelling and demonizing Seneschal. Secularism isn't a religion. You know it, I know it, and everyone else here knows it too. And your statement "shows their true colors after all"???? What, did you think with that thread title I was trying to hide my "true colors"? You aren't one of the brighter bulbs in the box, are you? Think we don't know the right wing baiting game lingo when we see it? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:24 PM (#1457351) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D well...are there two of you in THIS thread? "where most of us are strangers to one another in the 3D world." most of us?...maybe..I have met...in 3D...many Mudcat posters(over 100 now, with many more due to show up during the rest of the year)...and I have exchanged tapes, ideas and plans with many more. These are people. You are intent on being only humorless, critical phantoms. My attitude just doesn't suit your idea of how humans should share ideas. (and if a stranger introduces 'itself' as Anon to any Bill D, I'd sure like to see Bill's face...unless you are lucky enough to meet me....I'll charm you right out of your ID card!) |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:30 PM (#1457356) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST My attitude just doesn't suit your idea of how humans should share ideas. Wrong. It is you telling us to change. It is your attitude that wants us all to think like you, hey we don't. I couldn't give a monkeys how people label themselves. It isn't my problem. If any of you find it such a problem you have to carp on and on and on etc..... then take a walk and find a real problem to devote your energies to. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:31 PM (#1457357) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Not only is there more than one of us in the thread, there is even more than two of us. But BillD, you could give this a rest any time now. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:34 PM (#1457358) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Don't say that! As soon as he gives it a rest we'll have mcgrath banging the drum. But he doesn't read our posts so he won't know this. nod nod wink wink. Hi mcgrath. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:35 PM (#1457359) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D Oh, you must know I don't EXPECT you to change! It is just MY choice to point out the problems with totally anonymous posting by an unknown number of .....of....words fail me, I'm not Martin Gibson, so I can't call you anything but rude. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 03:41 PM (#1457361) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST So do you suppose BillD keeps going on and on because he is waiting for McGrath to come tell him he can't tell if there are one or two of us? Chilling thought on cool day in Rio. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:03 PM (#1457382) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Yes, that was the plan but it didnt work. But in light of the anon guest infantry being in pursuit of bigger issues than us right now, bill has almost retreated graciously. And we are also without amos telling us how arrogant we are not to follow HIS example. I feel short changed. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:09 PM (#1457390) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D re: the infantry. It's Sunday |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:13 PM (#1457397) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Sunday. Indeed. Yet, I've had WYSIWYG, Big Mick, Amos, and you spitting at me today. Just my luck I suppose. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:22 PM (#1457404) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,Seneschal Secularism can be a religion. Anything can. In fact switch the names and you're comments are just like the religious ones you affect to despise. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:28 PM (#1457408) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST No they aren't, and very few people on the planet would mistake secularism for an organized religion. I never said I despise religion, BTW. That's you attempting to paint secularists as a "secular humanist" so you can keep us in your neat little mental box marked "heretics". Secularists and freethinkers aren't the same as atheists. It is entirely possible to be a member of a conventional church, and still be both a secularist and a freethinker. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:46 PM (#1457416) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,Seneschal Your religion is anything you make it. Doesnt matter what you are nominally. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:51 PM (#1457422) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Tell that to the pope. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:53 PM (#1457425) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg It is entirely possible to be a member of a conventional church, and still be both a secularist and a freethinker. First you characterize a nice set of responses as "spitting," then you agree with me? :~) Just continuing to try to bait me, more like it. ~S~ |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:57 PM (#1457426) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST wizzy you started off your nice set of answers with your trademark 'what you really mean is this', snide put down and continued that way. Can't you go and preach to those unsure and leave the rest of us alone? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 04:59 PM (#1457430) Subject: elief RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: artbrooks I have heard it said that an absolute belief in the nonexistance of God (or god, if you prefer) is as much a religion as an absolute belief. Not, mind you, that I really think the ANON.GUEST really believes in anything except his/her/its right to try to raise the blood pressure of assorted Mudcatters. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 05:12 PM (#1457438) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Tosh. I absolutely don't believe in Little Red Riding Hood either, does that mean I worship at the wolf's altar? If people can't read an internet discussion, and a very well put together one at that, without having their blood pressure raised, they should seek medical help forthwith. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 05:20 PM (#1457447) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: artbrooks And where might one go to read that very well put together internet discussion? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 05:25 PM (#1457451) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST To a land far, far away. Please. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 05:26 PM (#1457454) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,Seneschal Man even Python's theological wrestlers put together a better discussion. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 05:30 PM (#1457457) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST So the reason you are still here bothering with us then is....??? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 05:40 PM (#1457465) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Once Famous Bill D. Being rude to guys like you is just plain fun because you take it all so seriously and it makes it all so easy to laugh at you for that reason. As long as you brought my name up in this thread, pal. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 06:16 PM (#1457499) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg wizzy you started off your nice set of answers with your trademark 'what you really mean is this', snide put down I sure didn't feel or mean to be snide, but it appears you chose either to take it that way or to characterize it that way to be rude yourself. I would disagree that snideness is a trademark of mine... the last time I was called that, the next poster after the complaint spoke in assurance that I am anything but. I asked a question (Secucrats, wouldn't it be?) and then made the point that you have put two things in opposition that rarely meet either in opposition or agreement. On balance, I think considering the offers that have been made to me to get upset in this thread, I've responded more than civilly. Perhaps you might address the question I raised? ~Susan |
|
10 Apr 05 - 06:24 PM (#1457502) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST wizzy I have no idea what question you raised. I was temporarily blinded by your poorly disguised arrogance, but then I always am, everytime I see your name I think 'Oh shit, there goes the old eyesight for a while.' You have a habit of starting so many replies, correcting what the previous poster had said, to the point that you are telling them what they meant to say? You don't know what they meant to say, and more often than not the original poster tells you that you have misinterpreted them, but does it stop you doing it? Does it buggery. No doubt you'll now condescend to tell me what I think I mean. Please ignore me as I am a guest and not worthy of your comment. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 06:30 PM (#1457518) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST I know exactly how you feel 06:24 PM. I haven't recovered yet from this morning's "Secucrats, wouldn't it be?" wizzy question of the day. It's that secucrats thing that's got me buggered. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM (#1457519) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,who Are you talking of Susan or yourself? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:00 PM (#1457549) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: wysiwyg wizzy I have no idea what question you raised. I can see that. I've asked it twice, now. Your own decision to be upset before even reading my post seems to cloud your thinking unnecessarily; you appear to be unable to define your terms and prefer flinging buzzwords about, and attacking me, instead. You seem to think any effort on my part to engage your thinking is an effort to put you down.... it's an unwarranted assumption. ~Susan |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:02 PM (#1457552) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST on the other hand, I know that all you regulars at Mudcat really care about your little place in cyberland. I should probably quit being such a prat and decide on a nice name. Anyone want to suggest one for me? |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:05 PM (#1457557) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Sorry, I can't help. I'm committed to remaining a thorn in the side of the prats, and besides, milk monitor is already taken. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM (#1457558) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST What is this? I hope you don't really mean that. An entire principle is at stake. If you pick a name, they'll expect me to also. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:09 PM (#1457561) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST The regulars demand I pick a name every damn time I post, so I don't lose much sleep over it. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:13 PM (#1457566) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST ok, then, I'll keep on with the program. My basic personality won't let me surrender to these daily harassments. There's the principle of unrestrained anonymity to be maintained. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:16 PM (#1457568) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST why don't we get together and schedule our tirades? we could have them totally apopleptic by the end of the day. |
|
10 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM (#1457569) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Who are you? Are the other one? Or are you me in disguise? I'll be buggered if I can tell who is who. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 12:36 AM (#1457723) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Ebbie Guest 7:02: How about 'Ex-Prat'? Has a nice ring to it. You guys might keep in mind that your attitude and opinions are not all that important to us. Once in awhile Guest says something meaningful, something that compels thought, and that is very nice. (You may notice that when that happens, the Mudcat still implores you to take a name, even if a temporary one, because they honor the subject you raised or the response you made- and because they want to explore the thought further- surely that is a good feeling?) But when you are just guest one, guest two, guest three, guest ad infinitum, you tend to blur into a Mudpuddle that you are splashing in. Which may be fun for you but is just mud to us. imo |
|
11 Apr 05 - 04:10 AM (#1457788) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST I started this thread to gloat. Oh and to bait Susan. Seems to have worked all too well. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 09:21 AM (#1457943) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST It was obvious you didn't care to actually address the issue or hear anyone else do it! |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:10 AM (#1457970) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: robomatic Go monickers! Beat No names! |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:30 AM (#1457983) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Why the hell should I listen to anyone? |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:36 AM (#1457988) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Because a different know-it-all may actually know something you don't? |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:37 AM (#1457989) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST And then if you listen you can be a better knowitall yourself... |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:44 AM (#1457995) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Amos A strange burst of honesty, to such unsocial purposes allowing your ownership, that once would cause shame and denial for their evil. A master among baiters, and an old gloat for the f**king. Take what you can in satisfaction from it, puerile Nameless One, as no-one else will give you any. A |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:52 AM (#1458003) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: John Hardly Dr. Heathcliffcrat "Cliffcrat" Huxtable was an OBGYN (obstetrician/gynecologist), and his wife Claircrat was a successful attorney. They had five children: Sondracrat, Denisecrat, Theocrat, Vanessacrat and Rudycrat. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:52 AM (#1458004) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: robomatic Holy Cats Amos, don't beat around the bush. Tell 'em what you really think! |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:57 AM (#1458010) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST This is a gloat not a conversation. If I had wanted it to be anything else I would have said so. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 11:07 AM (#1458017) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Amos How Godlike you are in your absolute determinations. I envy you your high psition, your great certainty, your self-assured power of "I"-ness. Must be nice. A |
|
11 Apr 05 - 01:07 PM (#1458107) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Oh, I am indeed Godlike. I can start threads on any subject and be a total ass, and you all will bite every time. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 01:12 PM (#1458114) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST You know, I may just change my writing style and make you think I'm more than one total ass. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:10 PM (#1458151) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Amos Your ambitions would do great credit to a slime-mold. Aren't you really better than that? A |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:17 PM (#1458159) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,slime mold I object to that. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:29 PM (#1458176) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: PoppaGator Back to basics: BEAT THEOCRATS! Let me just note that plenty of believers ~ church members as well as unaffiliated individuals ~ oppose the fundamentalist takeover of public dialog and government every bit as strongly as unbelievers. All it requires is a bit of intelligence. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM (#1458183) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: John Hardly THE O CRATS. THE P CRATS. THE Q CRATS. THE R CRATS. THE S CRATS. THE T CRATS. THE U CRATS. THE V CRATS. THE W CRATS. THE X CRATS. THE Y CRATS. THE Z CRATS. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM (#1458184) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST guest who are you to talk in my name? I started the damn thread and no wizzy or amos can do a thing. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 02:37 PM (#1458186) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Ebbie Enjoy |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:03 PM (#1458393) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D well, durn, guest...if the only name you have is 'guest', then anyone can talk in your name! (We had a 'guest' a few years ago that I 'almost' got to use "Rumplestiltskin"...but I think it went away---hard to tell.) |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:24 PM (#1458410) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST who cares. anyway i started this not whoever is claiming it |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM (#1458412) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Liar! |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:26 PM (#1458413) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST Hell no this is my thread. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:28 PM (#1458416) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST could we start calling oursels guest #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM (#1458420) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST what and give in to those mugcaters??? |
|
11 Apr 05 - 06:39 PM (#1458432) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST I think Susan started it, actually. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 09:39 PM (#1458561) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Once Famous And I would like to take a dump right here and finish it. |
|
11 Apr 05 - 10:10 PM (#1458573) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Bill D why, Martin...that's the first good idea you've had in ages! |
|
12 Apr 05 - 02:46 PM (#1459283) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: GUEST,Mrr Ah, if only it were so... (referring to the thread title, not the prior post, just in case!) |
|
12 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM (#1459287) Subject: RE: BS: GO SECULARISTS! BEAT THEOCRATS! From: Once Famous Yes, it is a good idea, Bill D. Open wide. |