Re: Definition of God

[stoney]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:08:16 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
alt.atheism

>On 22 Aug 2006 06:18:47 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
><paulholbachDELETETHENAME@freenet.de> wrote:
>
>>> Immortalist schrieb:
>>
>>> God is a concept ...
>>
>>No, God is an object (an existent or nonexistent one), and "God" is a
>>name.
>>What is a concept is "god".
>>
>>We characterize objects and define concepts:
>>
>>-- "God is characterized as ..."
>>
>>-- "'god' is defined as ..."
>
>God is the Being whose essence is existence, which means God is
>immutable and is therefore the source of existence for all that can
>and does exist. God is the energy needed for the Universe to exist.

Bob, take your meds.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:50:51 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1156448023.302527.99040@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On 24 Aug 2006 10:21:29 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>>> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> >> On 24 Aug 2006 08:48:25 -0700, "thepossibilities"
>>> >> <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Why do you morons invent beliefs we don't have?
>>> >>
>>> >> Learn the difference between your stupid, ignorant and smug straw man,
>>> >> and the actuality of HAVING ZERO REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR MYTHS.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >i didn't invent the belief its been around for thousands of years and
>>> >is still going.
>>>
>>> You meant the belief that brindead theists have about what is in
>>> atheists' heads?
>>>
>>> And that excuses you lying about atheists to our faces, brainwashed
>>> moron?
>>
>> don't get where you are going with this, can you offer a more detailed
>> response with less criticism, it distracts from the subject matter. i
>> am touching on the subject of God primarily because that is the main
>> subject here, I explained why I believe in God so explain to me the
>> convincing evidence you have there is no God and what other belief's an
>> atheist has.
>
>Are you being deliberately stupid?
>The onus is not on us to disprove your whacky ideas.


>Under normal circumstances, a negative cannot be proven.

Sorry, but yes it can. I can indicate there are no <type of currency>
in my wallet. Another person can check the wallet to verify it is
absent of the stated currency.


>For the question of whether or not your Christian God can exist in the
>manner in which it is described, look up the Epicurean Prooblem of Evil.
>Yours is an extraordinary claim.
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you have no proof
>whatsoever for any of your claims at all.

It doesn't even have a coherant definition for the key g-o-d letter
string.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:09:20 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism

>On 25 Aug 2006 09:02:36 -0700, "thepossibilities"
><bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>etc. is the total absence of hard evidence for them.
>>>
>>> And just like most of them, "thepossibilities" can't grasp this simple
>>> and obvious point so he stupidly and rudely both begs the question and
>>> invents positions we don't have.
>>
>>this doesn't make sense, so there is not positive information that God
>>doesn't exist which makes your view point so easy to prove right?
>>Because I only have to focus on the negative all my view points must be
>>right.
>
>Don't be so ****ing stupid.

It can't help it.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 25 Aug 2006 09:09:12 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>Steve O wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What makes you think atheists "believe in nothing"? We just don't
>> >> believe
>> >> in god(s).
>> >
>> > explain a little of what you believe in so I better understand
>> >
>>
>> I'll take a chance here and assume for a moment that you are someone who is
>> genuinely interested in what an atheist thinks.
>> Atheists believe in many different things.
>> I personally believe in honesty, loyalty , family and a whole host of other
>> things.
>> There are even some things I believe in that other people find difficult to
>> believe.
>> I'll give you an example - I believe in the Allen Carr method of quitting
>> smoking- which postulates that you can quit smoking completely in a matter
>> of hours.
>> Some people have difficulty in believing that.
>> I don't , because I used the method and went from 40 a day to nothing in a
>> matter of hours, without any side effects or suffering withdrawal symptoms
>> What I do not believe in, in common with all other atheists, is a god or
>> gods.
>> There is nothing to particularly understand- that's all there is to it.
>> It's very simple.
>> You probably don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.
>> I would completely accept your position on that, and I wouldn't try to tell
>> you how long the Tooth Fairy story has existed, or how many people actually
>> believe in the Tooth Fairy, or give examples of people who have actually
>> found cash underneath their pillow following a tooth loss, or try to offer
>> those facts as evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
>> To put it simply, and to paraphrase a well known atheist expression - I
>> simply believe in one less God than you do.
>> When you understand why you dismiss all other possible Gods, you will
>> understand why I dismiss yours.
>> I hope that explains things for you.

>i really appreciate this explaination, it was what I was looking for.
>I hope all atheists have similar principals in honesty, loyalty and
>family.

Atheists run the same gamut as theists do as we all are human and
constantly working with insufficient data. The main difference is
atheists have to take responsibility for their actions-both positive and
negative. They don't get to pawn things off on some bronze-age
fictional non-sacrifice like theists can. Please note I said 'can.'
I've been fortunate to run into a few theists who are honest and fine
human beings. Unfortunately, they're far and few between.

>i do not wish to change anyone's beliefs here, i only wanted to explain
>an experience i had that compells me to believe the way i do.

Lack of belief is not a belief. All it indicates is the theist
assertions lack substance and are not believed. Any experiance
(provided it actually happened) is only good for the individual it
happened to.

What I find a tad amusing is the experiances and logic of outsiders
aren't generally accepted by believers. If you listen you will see
theist tactics are the same as those of toddlers concerning Santa Claus.

The other thing is, by definition, everything that happens to you,
good or bad, every thought was scripted by your imaginary buddy before
it whacked off {Oh ME! Oh ME!}and ejaculated the universe.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:41:31 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:15:25 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, I personally believe my husband's quite the cutie pie, but that's
>>probably not what you're looking for
>
>Surely there is no man lovelier than my caro sposo. He knows when to
>leave the bit loose, so he gentle, but he never uses his whip.
>
>Lizz 'this is a metaphor. Nobody ever bought me a pony. And I'm still
>pissed about it' Holmans

LOL! Cheers Liz.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:43:37 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:42:04 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
><witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>snip
>>>
>>> okay, you can call it what you wish, how about a rise?
>>
>>Rise? Hey, whatever blows your dress up, kiddo.
>
>Your correspondent is probably speaking English English. Rise=raise in
>salary.
>
>Lizz 'and I don't wear dresses if I don't have to' Holmans

Skyclad's the way to go.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 25 Aug 2006 12:35:29 -0700, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
alt.atheism

>Robibnikoff wrote:
>> > not to mention writings from others about Jesus's existence
>>
>> Such as? Got a cite for that? BTW, Josephus doesn't count as that's a proven
>> forgery
>
>By whom? Modern scholars think otherwise. Produce your evidence for
>your position, or else apologise for it.

Piss off, lying arsed wanker.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 24 Aug 2006 12:45:55 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>Robibnikoff wrote:
>> "thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156438268.131836.281540@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Robibnikoff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Where did he stated he believe there is "only evil"? Sounds like
>> >> projection
>> >> on your part.
>> >
>> > not so much projection as i stayed up late watching baseball and
>> > misread what he said, my bad.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thank goodness for that. I would hope that sort of thinking went out
>> >> with
>> >> the dark ages.
>> >>
>> >
>> > i only added my two cents I'm not trying to change your world or your
>> > beliefs, but I will admit this is fun watching everyone spin because
>> > they can't handle someone believing differently.
>>
>> LOL - You're funny. What in the world makes you think we "can't handle" it?
>> I can handle it quite fine, dearly. I assure you.
>>
>
>glad to here it then, let's call this a debate and do away with the
>terms "moron", "idiot", "straw man" and "dishonest Christain".

Discussion. I don't debate. Well then, how about avoiding the actions
that generate the observations?

>> >> EVERYTHING that's in the bible?
>> >
>> > it was written in older times and by Man so I don't go along with
>> > absolutely everything just most things.
>>
>> Uh huh. Pick and choose what to believe in, eh? How typical. You're
>> what's known as a "Salad Bar Christian".
>
>i think you misunderstand me a little here, parts of the old testiment
>were replaced with the new testiment. hey you got any ranch to go with
>that?

No, it wasn't. The old laws, for Christians, remain until heaven and
earth pass away.

>> >> Yeah, right, sure.
>> >
>> > give it up your not changing anything I've witnessed, you can
>> > believe it didn't happen that's fine with me.
>>
>> Don't worry yourself, deary. I don't believe a word of it.
>
>good for you, it's your right. you wasn't there so what do you care.
>found it interesting how many people don't believe it but hey we all
>have our own mind. i would probably find it hard to believe myself if
>I hadn't ever experienced it and heard the story.
>
>> >
>> >> Fine, then bug off, okay?
>> >
>> > no, plain and simple no, this is a discussion board and this is a
>> > seriously interesting discussion to me.
>>
>> Alrighty then - You've been warned
>
>bring it on, I don't know everything there is to know for sure so
>anything new I can learn about what motivates people in what they
>believe in, great. always love learning.

That would be nice, if true.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:53:18 GMT, "BORG" <BORG@homeworld.com> wrote in
alt.atheism

>
>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1156448755.671396.135100@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> i think you misunderstand me a little here, parts of the old testiment
>> were replaced with the new testiment.
>
>It is this kind of thing that endears us to humans.
>I mean look at it.
>Ain't it CUTE!

If you're into rampant bugshit insane horror, yes.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:51:31 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:45:55 -0700, thepossibilities wrote:
>> [ Unimportant. ]
>
>Kiddo, you're crossposting to alt.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.skeptic,
>alt.atheism and alt.religion. Except for that last one, you're in the
>_wrong_ place to promote your religious belief.

The last one is wrong, too. This isn't alt.drooling.bronze.age.idiocy.

>Further, judging from what you've already written, you're way, _way_ out
>of your depth. Most folks here in alt.atheism have knocked down the
>arguments you've posted so far not once but many, many times. It may be
>new to you but it's certainly not new to us.
>
>So I suggest that you do one of three things: You can lurk for a while,
>reading what both the regulars and the trolling theists post and learning
>just why the attitude of most here is what it is. (You can also go to
>Google Groups and read the archives, which will also teach you a lot.)
>You can go play in your own sandbox and leave the rest of us alone,
>whereby we won't be annoyed and you won't have your cherished beliefs
>dissected and torn apart before your eyes. Or, finally, you can recognize
>that others don't share your beliefs and that those beliefs have no
>objective, provable underpinning, grow a very thick skin, and join the
>chaos that is alt.atheism.
>
>The alternative, of course, is to get your rhetorical ass handed to you in
>multiple pieces, over and over again. Your choice.

It'll be the latter to gain 'persecution brownie points.'


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:29:48 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com> wrote in message
>newsan.2006.08.24.21.53.44.425357@exit.com...

[]

>> > if I am cross
>> > posting it wasn't my intent I only wanted to respond to the "Re:
>> > Definition of God" post which I found under sci.logic. And yes I am
>> > relatively new to this group so thanks for the advice.
>>
>> You're welcome. If you want to avoid alt.atheism, I urge you to remove
>> that group from the list of groups to which your articles are posted.
>>
>When one doesn't know from which group the writer is posting and if one
>wished to respond to a given message, would it not be defeating the purpose
>of responding to delete any existing newsgroup? The writer possibility
>would never see the response.

The writer indicated she was posting from sci.logic and Frank suggested
it might be wise for her to eliminate alt.atheism from the newsgroups
line.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 24 Aug 2006 10:56:53 -0700, "Chris H. Fleming"
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>
>thepossibilities wrote:

[]

> I would rather invite good into my heart than hatred

Then you shouldn't be reading the bible.

[]


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:14:38 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
alt.atheism

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:23:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> I am a Billionaire for much the same reason. I don't want to believe
>>> that I can't afford a small island in the pacific.
>
>>Surely the best response so far!
>>I snorted beer out of my nostrils reading this.
>>Thanks a bunch, Chris.
>
>Aw ****! Here come the ****ing sock puppets.

Drools the dirty sock.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:34:37 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:44eee99b.143920140@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:23:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am a Billionaire for much the same reason. I don't want to believe
>>>> that I can't afford a small island in the pacific.
>>
>>>Surely the best response so far!
>>>I snorted beer out of my nostrils reading this.
>>>Thanks a bunch, Chris.
>>
>> Aw ****! Here come the ****ing sock puppets.
>
>???
>Why would you think that?

Bob and think are diametric opposites like the rest of the christobots.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On 25 Aug 2006 08:54:46 -0700, "thepossibilities"
<bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism

>question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still
>evolving into humans? why aren't humans evolving into aliens or
>something? probably gonna take a million billion years i would guess
>at which point the sun will go super nova and wipe everything in the
>solar system out anyway and you all will be in Bliss but won't even be
>aware of it because your dead and there is no God. Also i hear
>scientists have traced our genetics back to one man and one women. But
>you all probably would deny it anyway or maybe it was the two monkeys
>that evolved into a man and women? why haven't we been contacted by
>other worlds? Are we alone in the universe?

Such horrendous and invincible ignorance. Child when you reach
kindergarten I suggest staying awake and at least try to learn
something.

>Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang?

That's one possibility.

> what was out there before?

There was no 'before.'

>The possibility of evolution is like a tornado going through a junk
>yard and putting together a 747 jet, but science can reach can't it.

Not this ancient and decrepit lie again. Too bad ignorance isn't
painful.

>Yet science is not exact and never will be, it is constantly changing.

It's called 'learning,' moron. What a radical idea. I know, it's much
too scary for you and it takes work.

>Out with the old misguided belief and in with the new miguided belief.

Such casual false witness.

>Also I consider the Bible to be a history book

Mental toddlers have that tendency, yes.

>but apparently it's one
>you all easily dismiss which is fine with me because I don't care.

False witness noted. It's dismissed based on the reality disconnect.

> I wonder what the suicide rate is for atheists?

I'm sure it'll rise based on your drooling idiocy. Who's powering your
iron lung and why?


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:25:04 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1156521286.505446.325350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still
>> evolving into humans? why aren't humans evolving into aliens or
>> something? probably gonna take a million billion years i would guess
>> at which point the sun will go super nova and wipe everything in the
>> solar system out anyway and you all will be in Bliss but won't even be
>> aware of it because your dead and there is no God. Also i hear
>> scientists have traced our genetics back to one man and one women. But
>> you all probably would deny it anyway or maybe it was the two monkeys
>> that evolved into a man and women? why haven't we been contacted by
>> other worlds? Are we alone in the universe?
>>
>No one knows. But since life exist on earth, there must be life elsewhere
>regardless of whether you believe life was created or was brought about
>by natural forces.
>>
>> Do you believe the universe was created from a big bang? what was out
>> there before?
>>
>There was no before. The big bang was the beginning. It was the
>beginning of space time, the laws of physics and ultimately the
>beginning of life on at least one planet.
>>
>> The possibility of evolution is like a tornado going through a junk
>> yard and putting together a 747 jet, but science can reach can't it.
>>
>This was the argument of Fred Hoyle. He was one of the 3 scientist
>who hypothesis the steady state universe. He is the person who
>sarcastily labeled the hypothesis the big Bang

IIRC, steady state was shown to be false by the mid 1950's.

>> Yet science is not exact and never will be, it is constantly changing.
>> Out with the old misguided belief and in with the new miguided belief.
>>
>You are really going out on a limb. You are right the sciences are
>changing. This is called progress. Some theories are falsified and
>changed or just fall by the way. As new observations occur new
>hypothesis are offered to explain them. Predictions based upon
>these theories are offered and tested. This is how science works.
>Science is in a state of flux, no amount of testing, no matter of
>how many times it confirms the theory it is never proven. A
>single conflicting observation can falsify a theory so that it must
>be either modified or discarded.
>>
>> Also I consider the Bible to be a history book but apparently it's one
>> you all easily dismiss which is fine with me because I don't care. I
>> wonder what the suicide rate is for atheists?
>>
>Maybe as a history of the Jews it has some value, but as a
>scientist text it has no value. It should not be used as an
>argument against science neither can it be used to support
>a purported scientific claim.

Nicely stated. Thank you.

Superman

 

[stoney]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:43:26 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

>
>"thepossibilities" <bhunt1273@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1156521286.505446.325350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> question, if we came from monkeys then why aren't monkeys still
>> evolving into humans? why aren't humans evolving into aliens or
>> something?
>
>This is about the dumbest question anyone could ever ask concerning
>evolutionary theory.
>It is a variatiopn of the old "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are
>monkeys still around? " question.
>To ask this question is to display a profound ignorance on the subject.
>Please stop.
>You are simply making a fool of yourself, yet you seem completely unaware of
>it.
>First of all, it is highly unlikely that monkeys would ever evolve into
>humans.
>Evolution has no foresight - there is no attainable goal, and it is arrogant
>and presumptious of you to think that human beings are the pinnacle of
>evolution.
>There are other animals far more suitably adapted to their environment.
>The only thing that monkeys could ever evolve into, for your information -
>is more sophisticated monkeys.
>
>
>
> >probably gonna take a million billion years i would guess
>> at which point the sun will go super nova and wipe everything in the
>> solar system out anyway and you all will be in Bliss but won't even be
>> aware of it because your dead and there is no God. Also i hear
>> scientists have traced our genetics back to one man and one women. But
>> you all probably would deny it anyway or maybe it was the two monkeys
>> that evolved into a man and women? why haven't we been contacted by
>> other worlds? Are we alone in the universe?
>
>I have just realised I am trying to hold a conversation with an idiot.
>Goodbye.

It isn't that evolved. Ah the vaunted Amerikkkan education system
strikes again. And that country's got lots of nukes with a fundy idiot
controlling them.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Sean]

"DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NZ3Ig.11239$L6.6402@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>

snip

>>
> I'm rather new to this community.

snip

>
> Dan
>
>

I wouldn't waste your time Dan. What you would ignore in real life walking
thru a grocery store, applies to usenet as well. You don't need to explain
or defend anything, and giving out info to emotionally disturbed individuals
is not something you would normally do. don't do it here either. cheers.

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:03:42 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>I do agree with you that you are nothing but a troll.

But I am not the usual troll.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:31:43 +0100, Lizz Holmans
<dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Gore and Kerry are bloody commies who would turn America into Britain,
>>which has to be one of the most ****ed up places on Earth.

>I'll bet my hat against the hole in a doughnut that you have not been
>conversant with British politics for the last 20 years.

For the past 10 years I have been in daily correspondence with real
British citizens. I read the Telegraph every morning. I participate on
British political forums like uk.politics.misc and uk.legal. I know
more about contemporary British politics than many Brits who read
those pinko commie rags.

>I've been a
>happy ex-pat for nine; I've met real commies (usually a humorless
>bunch).

It is clear that you do not understand Texas jargon. A "commie" is a
term used to denote someone from the ExtremeFarLeft, usually a
socialist but generally a godless collectivist.

>If you live Over Here, vote LibDem.

My British friends vote UKIP.

>If you're not, then your
>definitions of '****ed up' are diametricly opposed to the more
>rational, less rabid 'social services.'

ROTF.

You must like oxymorons like "rational social services".


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain