Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|buckeye wrote:
>:|> Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|>
>:|>> :|buckeye wrote:
>:|>> :|> Thursday, May 08, 2008
>:|>> :|>
>:|>> :|> The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:
>:|>> :|
>:|>> :|Who/what is an example of the "Religious Right"?
>:|>
>:|> Ahhhhhh, the man who never runs out of questions expecting others to
do his
>:|> homework and or research for him.
>:|>
>:|> My answer is:
>:|> Are you totally helpless? Look it up yourself.
>:|
>:|This is a discussion forum.
Really? Wow!
Actually, it is whatever anyone wants it to be.
Having been in these UseNet Newsgroups, nonstop, since Feb 1995, I think I
have a very good and accurate understanding of what these groups/forums
are.
>:|I'm attempting to discuss the topic.
Really? I see you as someone playing games. I see you as someone trying
to
control whatever "discussion" you are in via the constant supply of
questions, the refusal to do your own homework. The *****ing and belly
aching about the number of groups someone cross posts to. Stating , as if
you really expect anyone to care, what you appreciate and don't
appreciate, etc.
>:| Dump
>:|and run posting is not appreciated.
You mistake me for someone who cares what you appreciate or don't
appreciate. I don't care.
BTW, I don't run. I have been here long before you ever got here and
there
is a good chance I will be here long after you are gone. When I post
evidence, data, do***entation, etc nothing else needs to be said. That
is
my reply and unless they take the time to read it over, think about it,
research what I provided looking for data that challenges it and provides
that, there is nothing else to say.
I have a particular style which I am not going to change. It tends to piss
people off because I refuse to play their games with them. It can also be
embarrassing to them. I not only refuse to play their game with them I
routinely expose them as being incorrect.
I don't do it by discussing their fantasies with them, , their incorrect
opinions and flawed beliefs. My opinion is of no more im****tance than
theirs is.
I do it by countering those with primary and informed respected secondary
source data. Its called using evidence, do***entation, data & facts to
dispel the flawed, the false, the propaganda and other wise incorrect
beliefs, opinions etc that another is trying to offer as TRUE.
I subscribe very heavily to the following "school of thought"
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary
proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting
to clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
You don't like the way I post, I don't care. My advice to you is stop
reading/replying to my posts if you don't like the way I post.
Simple solution, huh?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
