Forgiveness

Post by Steve Hayes
If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I have
written here, please forgive me.

Yaaaaawnnnnnn

Post by Steve Hayes
See
http://methodius.blogspot.com
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

William A. Bong

2007-02-19 07:04:31 UTC

Yawnnnnnnnnn...........

"Steve Hayes" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I have
| written here, please forgive me.

Then back to your old obnoxious self on Monday huh.
|
| See

<god botherer crap snipped>

Skokkie

2007-02-18 07:40:26 UTC

Post by William A. Bong
Yawnnnnnnnnn...........
| If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I have
| written here, please forgive me.
Then back to your old obnoxious self on Monday huh.
|
| See
<god botherer crap snipped>

I will forgive you because I know that you forgive me for the hurt
that I have in turn caused to you. May we continue in robust debate,
particularly you and I who come from slightly differing ends of the
Christian spectrum, but also continue to heal each other's wounds when
we cause them.

I will also understand your outrage about the "troll cage
rattling" (Ad Trolliem) with the less gifted members of the newsgroup
and will promise to be more sensitive in the future in diverting this
out of your threads, with the possible exception of the following:

HEY BONG! What is it about God that bothers you? (Be transparent for a
change and look deep)

William A. Bong

2007-02-19 08:08:41 UTC

"Skokkie" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| On Feb 19, 9:04 am, "William A. Bong" <***@bong.co>
| wrote:
| > Yawnnnnnnnnn...........
| >
| > "Steve Hayes" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:***@4ax.com...
| > | If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I
have
| > | written here, please forgive me.
| >
| > Then back to your old obnoxious self on Monday huh.
| > |
| > | See
| >
| > <god botherer crap snipped>
|
| HEY BONG! What is it about God that bothers you? (Be transparent for a
| change and look deep)
|

God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished some
of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-18 08:23:29 UTC

On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"

Post by William A. Bong
God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished some
of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.

The old grocer's apostrophe, I see.

As I've mentioned before, 'taking offence' is a fairly recent and
sadly popular sport where the person taking it pretends to some sort
of moral superiority - the game should be renamed 'humbug'.

Skokkie

2007-02-18 18:26:44 UTC

Post by William A. Bong
God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished some
of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.

The old grocer's apostrophe, I see.
As I've mentioned before, 'taking offence' is a fairly recent and
sadly popular sport where the person taking it pretends to some sort
of moral superiority - the game should be renamed 'humbug'.

Define "grocer's apostrophe" for the standard grade students please
Peter.

( BTW Sorry for the offences that I have caused you, (but it did seem
like water off a ducks back and you taught me a lot.)

Steve Hayes

2010-03-23 02:28:01 UTC

Post by William A. Bong
God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished some
of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.

The old grocer's apostrophe, I see.

Define "grocer's apostrophe" for the standard grade students please
Peter.

Pea's
Carrot's
Cauliflour's

Skokkie

2007-02-18 18:23:18 UTC

On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"

Post by William A. Bong
| > Yawnnnnnnnnn...........
| >
| >
| > | If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I
have
| > | written here, please forgive me.
| >
| > Then back to your old obnoxious self on Monday huh.
| > |
| > | See
| >
| > <god botherer crap snipped>
|
| HEY BONG! What is it about God that bothers you? (Be transparent for a
| change and look deep)
|
God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished some
of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.
God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished some
of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.

Really ! So it is okay for a person to have a viewpoint but they must
not express it if it annoys you.
That is the sort of intolerance that caused the Spanish Inquisition.

For the record, as one of his antagonists, I can say that Steve talks
from a Christian viewpoint but does not proselytise openly and does
not generally cast judgement on the eternal soul of anyone in the
newsgroup community. He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest. With this in mind I would say that
it is God that is bothering you when people mention him.

William A. Bong

2007-02-20 00:12:03 UTC

"Skokkie" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
| <***@bong.co> wrote:
| > "Skokkie" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:***@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Feb 19, 9:04 am, "William A. Bong"
<***@bong.co>| wrote:
| >
| > | > Yawnnnnnnnnn...........
| > | >
| > | > "Steve Hayes" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | >
| > | >news:***@4ax.com...
| > | > | If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I
| > have
| > | > | written here, please forgive me.
| > | >
| > | > Then back to your old obnoxious self on Monday huh.
| > | > |
| > | > | See
| > | >
| > | > <god botherer crap snipped>
| > |
| > | HEY BONG! What is it about God that bothers you? (Be transparent for a
| > | change and look deep)
| > |
| >
| > God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished
some
| > of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.
|
|
| > God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished
some
| > of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.
|
| Really ! So it is okay for a person to have a viewpoint but they must
| not express it if it annoys you.

So what view point was it then?

Something like this from the old farts blog " I've seen many appeals for
payer for the meeting of the Anglican primates in Dar-es-Salaam, "

| That is the sort of intolerance that caused the Spanish Inquisition.
|
| For the record, as one of his antagonists, I can say that Steve talks
| from a Christian viewpoint but does not proselytise openly and does
| not generally cast judgement on the eternal soul of anyone in the
| newsgroup community. He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
| Brooks, a self confessed athiest. With this in mind I would say that
| it is God that is bothering you when people mention him.
|

I should know who bothers me, and can confirm that none of the god's do.
The old fart is punting a specific religion, not god.

Skokkie

2007-02-19 10:19:40 UTC

Post by William A. Bong
| >
| >
| > | > Yawnnnnnnnnn...........
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | If I have offended anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, by anything I
| > have
| > | > | written here, please forgive me.
| > | >
| > | > Then back to your old obnoxious self on Monday huh.
| > | > |
| > | > | See
| > | >
| > | > <god botherer crap snipped>
| > |
| > | HEY BONG! What is it about God that bothers you? (Be transparent for a
| > | change and look deep)
| > |
| >
| > God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished
some
| > of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.
|
|
| > God's never bothered me, so I have no hassle with him - I just wished
some
| > of his followers wouldn't punt their shit here.
|
| Really ! So it is okay for a person to have a viewpoint but they must
| not express it if it annoys you.
So what view point was it then?
Something like this from the old farts blog " I've seen many appeals for
payer for the meeting of the Anglican primates in Dar-es-Salaam, "

Which is topical, relevant and urgent.

Post by William A. Bong
| That is the sort of intolerance that caused the Spanish Inquisition.
|
| For the record, as one of his antagonists, I can say that Steve talks
| from a Christian viewpoint but does not proselytise openly and does
| not generally cast judgement on the eternal soul of anyone in the
| newsgroup community. He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
| Brooks, a self confessed athiest. With this in mind I would say that
| it is God that is bothering you when people mention him.
|
I should know who bothers me, and can confirm that none of the god's do.
The old fart is punting a specific religion, not god.

Well then here we get into the time honoured old semantic argument.
The entities that you refer to when you use the word god with a small
g, are often too inconsequential to bother anyone other than the fools
who revere them.
I was however referring to a person who is specifically given that
name and it is spelled with a capital G.
The big God bothers all who deny him.

The old fart is merely stating his viewpoint from the standpoint or
worldview of a specific religion. The fact that this bothers you
enough for you to insult him and call him a god botherer shows that
you are indeed bothered by the concept of God, and that you become
intolerant even when He is mentioned.

Norman

2007-02-21 04:41:38 UTC

Which is topical, relevant and urgent.

Well then here we get into the time honoured old semantic argument.
The entities that you refer to when you use the word god with a small
g, are often too inconsequential to bother anyone other than the fools
who revere them.
I was however referring to a person who is specifically given that
name and it is spelled with a capital G.
The big God bothers all who deny him.
The old fart is merely stating his viewpoint from the standpoint or
worldview of a specific religion. The fact that this bothers you
enough for you to insult him and call him a god botherer shows that
you are indeed bothered by the concept of God, and that you become
intolerant even when He is mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As you know I've been away & I come back to this unbelievable shytte,
as a friend of mine would say. Steve "I hate ad hominems & trols"
Hayes throws out in post one of this thread the most classic piece of
troll bait I have ever seen on this ng & you jump in with both feet.
If he hadn't posted the URL who the hell would have know or cared
whether he had insulted anyone or not.
Zakanaka said it all.
Yaaaaawnnnnnn

Skokkie

2007-02-23 17:39:30 UTC

Post by Norman

Which is topical, relevant and urgent.

Well then here we get into the time honoured old semantic argument.
The entities that you refer to when you use the word god with a small
g, are often too inconsequential to bother anyone other than the fools
who revere them.
I was however referring to a person who is specifically given that
name and it is spelled with a capital G.
The big God bothers all who deny him.
The old fart is merely stating his viewpoint from the standpoint or
worldview of a specific religion. The fact that this bothers you
enough for you to insult him and call him a god botherer shows that
you are indeed bothered by the concept of God, and that you become
intolerant even when He is mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The guy apologised, I have no choice but to show good Christian form
and accept it, in good faith.

I note that it has not been acknowleged and that he has not responded
to some of the more concilliatory posts that I have submitted since.
Maybe he has killfiled me like I challenged him.

You will also note that when I had one of my worst christian since
Ghengis Khan ding dongs with you, you had the grace to apologise and I
accepted it, even though it was like sw2allowing ground glass, but now
that you are a friend and we are sharing from a very harmonious base,
I am very happy - me awld China Plate

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-24 07:08:31 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

I missed this bit, it's perfectly true about the rational discussion
bit, but I'm not sure that I'd describe myself as 'self-confessed'. If
anything, I'd say that I try to be rational, that's all. If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist. Just as there are no aleviathanist because,
as far as I know there are no leviathanists, because even if some
fundamentalists believe in the literal existence of the leviathan,
even they (I hope), wouldn't try to define themselves by this.

Or, to put it more simply, if I were a 'self-confessed atheist' then
I'd be defining myself by my atheism and, to my mind, that's simply
silly, I don't define myself by not believing in anything, not little
green men from Mars, not leviathans and not gods. If I were to confess
to anything, I think that I'd confess to being a humanist and an
anarchist. Having read an article in a recent New Scientist on how
we're an unusual mammal because no other species shares our genus
because we've, presumably, eaten or out-competed for food all the
brighter and nicer mammals that might otherwise have shared our genus,
I'm not quite sure that I really want to continue being a humanist. If
I gave up being a humanist, I'm not sure there'd be much sense in
being an anarchist either because that depends, as well, on an
optimistic view of humanity.

B J Foster

2007-02-24 07:14:54 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Skokkie

2007-02-24 08:47:17 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep

But wow - What a circumlocution?

ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

B J Foster

2007-02-24 10:39:35 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.

PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.

For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.

Skokkie

2007-02-24 14:01:54 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But a Nazi is a Leftist, defined as a person who has a strong belief
in socialism, that is to say a belief in the economics of
redistribution. Nazi = National Socialist. The only difference between
Hitler and Marx is that Hiltler defined socialism among his own race,
ethnicity and creed while Marx - well he did not define it so rigidly
but was still politically left wing - a redistributionalistic maniac.

But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!

Skokkie

2007-02-24 14:06:43 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But a Nazi is a Leftist, defined as a person who has a strong belief
in socialism, that is to say a belief in the economics of
redistribution. Nazi = National Socialist. The only difference between
Hitler and Marx is that Hiltler defined socialism among his own race,
ethnicity and creed while Marx - well he did not define it so rigidly
but was still politically left wing - a redistributionalistic maniac.
But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

BTW - Frank was a moron of note who continually tried to prove that I
was a plumber, that one should be ashamed of being a plumber, and that
plumbers should know their place in the scheme of things. He has not
posted around here for a while as he was one of those who became an "
scsa dartboard" where the guys used to throw pointed things at him
for sport - sort of like a duty nostril, like brother Joke Mehoff is
at the present.

B J Foster

2007-02-24 14:07:05 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True. I would say that Nazis are economically left but politically right.

Post by Skokkie
But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Got it.

Skokkie

2007-02-24 15:27:04 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True. I would say that Nazis are economically left but politically right.

BJ Said "True. I would say that Nazis are economically left but
politically right."

Nah - You still have not got it ! Go to www.thepoliticalcompass in
order to understand the difference between Hitler, Marx and Ghandi -
people who were all very left wing, but radically different. The
answer is that they are not measured only on a left right axis but a
vertical scale of Authoritarian / Libertarian. You then get a matrix
that measureds their economic ./ political approach with their big
people small government or vice versa approach

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-24 15:32:41 UTC

Nah - You still have not got it ! Go to www.thepoliticalcompassin
order to understand the difference between Hitler, Marx and Ghandi -
people who were all very left wing, but radically different.

They're not radically different, radically, that is, at their roots,
they are the same as they are ideological and their ideology leads
them to believe that they are correct and that the best way to get
other people to understand that is to use force, as much and as lethal
as necessary, entirely for their own good. All ideologues believe that
people are too stupid and perverse to understand what is good for them
and they need strong whipping into line (literally where possible).

B J Foster

2007-02-25 01:34:13 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True. I would say that Nazis are economically left but politically right.

BJ Said "True. I would say that Nazis are economically left but
politically right."
Nah - You still have not got it ! Go to www.thepoliticalcompass in
order to understand the difference between Hitler, Marx and Ghandi -
people who were all very left wing, but radically different. The
answer is that they are not measured only on a left right axis but a
vertical scale of Authoritarian / Libertarian. You then get a matrix
that measureds their economic ./ political approach with their big
people small government or vice versa approach

I see your point, but the general belief is that Nazis are "right" and
Marxists are "left".
It may be that the general belief is only applying one dimension
(economic) but that's the way it is.

I agree that there is more than one dimension (and Marx/Hitler are not
very different) however you have to explain all this everytime you have
a conversation with other people who use everyday language and beliefs.

FreeSpirit_uk

2007-02-24 18:53:37 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But a Nazi is a Leftist, defined as a person who has a strong belief
in socialism, that is to say a belief in the economics of
redistribution. Nazi = National Socialist. The only difference between
Hitler and Marx is that Hiltler defined socialism among his own race,
ethnicity and creed while Marx - well he did not define it so rigidly
but was still politically left wing - a redistributionalistic maniac.
But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Sorry to spoil your day but he's still lurking about under the name of
Jenicek. His new name suggests that he may have undergone a sex change
since you last rattled his cage. And his spelling is still bad.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-24 14:13:32 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes, quite, and, ergo JC and the thrice denyers are Nazis, what with
the loaves and fishes and free wine and rich men being squeezed dryer
than a camel. No wonder they crucified him.

Post by Skokkie
But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!

Plumbers only exist because lead exists.

Skokkie

2007-02-24 23:48:32 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes, quite, and, ergo JC and the thrice denyers are Nazis, what with
the loaves and fishes and free wine and rich men being squeezed dryer
than a camel. No wonder they crucified him.

Post by Skokkie
But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!

Plumbers only exist because lead exists.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

" Plumbers only exist because lead exists."

Lead is dead - it is no longer used and modern plumbers use plastic
and copper it is called panopolistic plumbing.

I would have expected you to have noted that one - who are you? etc
etc etc

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-25 03:40:15 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is
centre-right. Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From
the nazi's perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB
principle, you can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the
political spectrum is not relative. You are not defined by what the
other person (i.e. lunatic) thinks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes, quite, and, ergo JC and the thrice denyers are Nazis, what with
the loaves and fishes and free wine and rich men being squeezed dryer
than a camel. No wonder they crucified him.

Post by Skokkie
But I know understand that Plumbers can only exist because Frank
exists!

Plumbers only exist because lead exists.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

" Plumbers only exist because lead exists."
Lead is dead - it is no longer used and modern plumbers use plastic
and copper it is called panopolistic plumbing.
I would have expected you to have noted that one - who are you? etc
etc etc

I have noted that. My point still stands, though, they only exist
because lead exists. If lead hadn't existed, then they wouldn't be
plumbers. QED.

FreeSpirit_uk

2007-02-24 18:53:55 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that's not it. A plumber is an absolute.
PHMB defined 'atheist' as relative. Atheists can only exist *because*
theists exist. It's brilliant.

Not really. Like ice and de-ice, good and bad, light and dark - though the
latter logical pairs could be getting a bit deep.

Post by B J Foster
For example, say your position on the political spectrum is centre-right.
Then along comes a nazi and calls you as "leftist". From the nazi's
perspective *everyone* is leftist but according to the PHMB principle, you
can tell the nazi to get knotted - your position on the political spectrum
is not relative. You are not defined by what the other person (i.e.
lunatic) thinks.

Moira touched on that in her reply to Agnes in the "Good Safety Tips"
thread.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-24 14:11:07 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that doesn't follow. If you're a plumber, then you are something.
I'm not a plumber, but that isn't something, that's not something.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't really define myself as a notplumber -
maybe a knotplumber if I constructed some of the things the Victorians
did, but certainly not a notplumber.

Defining oneself as something usually only makes sense if there is a
something. I might be, technically, a professional artist (since that
is defined as somebody who isn't an amateur artist because he's sold a
work of his art), but I don't define myself as that, even though art
and artists certainly do exist, but that's a matter of choice, I
could, if I wished, define myself as a professional artist and put it
on my business card. Nobody would find that odd, well, not many people
anyway. If, on the other hand, I defined myself as a non-cricketer or
non-cosmonaut on my business card, I wouldn't expect much custom, not
even from people who had previously taken a fairly broad view as to my
possible sanity.

Skokkie

2007-02-24 23:44:50 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that doesn't follow. If you're a plumber, then you are something.
I'm not a plumber, but that isn't something, that's not something.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't really define myself as a notplumber -
maybe a knotplumber if I constructed some of the things the Victorians
did, but certainly not a notplumber.
Defining oneself as something usually only makes sense if there is a
something. I might be, technically, a professional artist (since that
is defined as somebody who isn't an amateur artist because he's sold a
work of his art), but I don't define myself as that, even though art
and artists certainly do exist, but that's a matter of choice, I
could, if I wished, define myself as a professional artist and put it
on my business card. Nobody would find that odd, well, not many people
anyway. If, on the other hand, I defined myself as a non-cricketer or
non-cosmonaut on my business card, I wouldn't expect much custom, not
even from people who had previously taken a fairly broad view as to my
possible sanity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So then would they describe you as sane or insane?, nane or inane?"

For the record Skokkie is a very strong non-cricketer, having declared
conscienscious objection at school where Cricket was compulsory and
one got dawked if one did not attend. Skokkie found it strange that
grown men could become so obsessed with the ball and bat behaviour
that they would assault children with a stick in order to compel them
to make the religious observances. Religious observance was driven
down to the smallest details of one's attire with a system of
penitence similar to saying 'Hail Mary's' only it involved repetitive
graphic representation of the mantras on pieces of paper.

During the winter months the rites of passage would change to Rugby
and once again repressive punishment was doled out for those who did
not make obesiance on a Saturday afternoon.

Thankfully there was much green weed to be had as an alternative, but
Skokkie eventually grew out of the practice of smoking it, so The
skokkie can therefore describe himself as an ex-cosmonaut. At that
time I was not a plumber, but having had some success at developing
pipe fabricating skills, I can now say that I have learned to leave
behind the state of ignorance of plumbing and now have skills that can
be used to tackle many of the problems that may arise with my domestic
circumstances. I have ensured that I have a pure water supply to my
house and that crap and effluent are adequately flushed away. I am
therefore glad that I have plumbing among my many skills.

So there it is Skokkie is a man who has embraced the concept of
plumbing, he is a definite non-cricketer, and a reformed cosmonaut!

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-25 03:45:13 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that doesn't follow. If you're a plumber, then you are something.
I'm not a plumber, but that isn't something, that's not something.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't really define myself as a notplumber -
maybe a knotplumber if I constructed some of the things the Victorians
did, but certainly not a notplumber.
Defining oneself as something usually only makes sense if there is a
something. I might be, technically, a professional artist (since that
is defined as somebody who isn't an amateur artist because he's sold a
work of his art), but I don't define myself as that, even though art
and artists certainly do exist, but that's a matter of choice, I
could, if I wished, define myself as a professional artist and put it
on my business card. Nobody would find that odd, well, not many people
anyway. If, on the other hand, I defined myself as a non-cricketer or
non-cosmonaut on my business card, I wouldn't expect much custom, not
even from people who had previously taken a fairly broad view as to my
possible sanity.

Well, yes, there is that. Again, if it were a rational world and there
were no cricket then you couldn't be a non-cricketer.

Post by Skokkie
During the winter months the rites of passage would change to Rugby
and once again repressive punishment was doled out for those who did
not make obesiance on a Saturday afternoon.

Being too blind to see the ball saved me from that religion. My useful
article on homosexuality and rugby - all those heaving scrums, the
Freudian significance of kicking balls through poles etc. etc., was
banned from the school's internal 'free thought', 'uncensored'
magazine.

Post by Skokkie
Thankfully there was much green weed to be had as an alternative, but
Skokkie eventually grew out of the practice of smoking it, so The
skokkie can therefore describe himself as an ex-cosmonaut. At that
time I was not a plumber, but having had some success at developing
pipe fabricating skills, I can now say that I have learned to leave
behind the state of ignorance of plumbing and now have skills that can
be used to tackle many of the problems that may arise with my domestic
circumstances. I have ensured that I have a pure water supply to my
house and that crap and effluent are adequately flushed away. I am
therefore glad that I have plumbing among my many skills.

Ganja smokers aren't even metaphorical cosmonauts and an ex-cosmonaut
would, in any event, be a far more positive and real thing to be than
a non- or a- cosmonaut.

Post by Skokkie
So there it is Skokkie is a man who has embraced the concept of
plumbing, he is a definite non-cricketer, and a reformed cosmonaut!

I suspect that you're also an ex-cricketer rather than a non-
cricketer.

Skokkie

2007-02-25 06:54:13 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"
He engages in rational discussion with Peter HM
Brooks, a self confessed athiest.

If everybody
was rational then there would be no theists, so there wouldn't be any
such thing as an atheist.

Very good

Yep
But wow - What a circumlocution?
ergo - Skokkie is a plumber but does not define himself as a plumber
therefore plumbing does not exist! (Where's that bleddy Frank when you
need him)

No, that doesn't follow. If you're a plumber, then you are something.
I'm not a plumber, but that isn't something, that's not something.
Even if I wanted to, I couldn't really define myself as a notplumber -
maybe a knotplumber if I constructed some of the things the Victorians
did, but certainly not a notplumber.
Defining oneself as something usually only makes sense if there is a
something. I might be, technically, a professional artist (since that
is defined as somebody who isn't an amateur artist because he's sold a
work of his art), but I don't define myself as that, even though art
and artists certainly do exist, but that's a matter of choice, I
could, if I wished, define myself as a professional artist and put it
on my business card. Nobody would find that odd, well, not many people
anyway. If, on the other hand, I defined myself as a non-cricketer or
non-cosmonaut on my business card, I wouldn't expect much custom, not
even from people who had previously taken a fairly broad view as to my
possible sanity.

Well, yes, there is that. Again, if it were a rational world and there
were no cricket then you couldn't be a non-cricketer.

Post by Skokkie
During the winter months the rites of passage would change to Rugby
and once again repressive punishment was doled out for those who did
not make obesiance on a Saturday afternoon.

Ganja smokers aren't even metaphorical cosmonauts and an ex-cosmonaut
would, in any event, be a far more positive and real thing to be than
a non- or a- cosmonaut.

Post by Skokkie
So there it is Skokkie is a man who has embraced the concept of
plumbing, he is a definite non-cricketer, and a reformed cosmonaut!

I suspect that you're also an ex-cricketer rather than a non-
cricketer.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Skokkie is a non-Cricketer, an Acricketer, but not an Ex-Cricketer -
Never been a cricketer, avoided it because of oppressive religious
behaviour displayed by it's adherents when I was a schoolboy. Not
nterested now, especially when I see atrocities like the demise of
Hansie Louw.

Skokkie used to mix microdots with his Zol, and also do that sh** from
Mocambique that used to have opium mixed with it. Played in bands in
London in mid 1970's - Trust me, Skokkie was a cosmonaut, a serious
space cadet! and is now very much an ex cosmonaut!

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-25 09:06:44 UTC

Post by Skokkie
Skokkie used to mix microdots with his Zol, and also do that sh** from
Mocambique that used to have opium mixed with it. Played in bands in
London in mid 1970's - Trust me, Skokkie was a cosmonaut, a serious
space cadet! and is now very much an ex cosmonaut!

Space cadets are very different from cosmonauts in my view -
cosmonauts actually get somewhere. To my mind really bad cases of
space cadetitis turn into Space Admirals, but never actual spacemen.

I was surprised the other day to learn that the lethal dose of opium
is supposed to be 2grams - the lump that I ate in Goa must have been
at least eight grams.

Skokkie

2007-02-25 07:19:40 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
On Feb 19, 10:08 am, "William A. Bong"

During the winter months the rites of passage would change to Rugby
and once again repressive punishment was doled out for those who did
not make obesiance on a Saturday afternoon.

Truly, both the spirit of Athie and that of Rational watched over you
there. As I crest the wave of my mid life crises (crisises?) I become
ever more convinced of the folly of forcing young children to engage
in this behaviour that can have a very negative impact on their
orthopaedic development. And now when most of us skip towards our
second childhood with glee, here come the old "Rugger Buggers", with
pot bellies from years of standing in sports club bars, they are often
only barely mobile due to back injuries and eroded knee cartilages.
Did your article further examine the significance of the strange men
who would take such delight in whipping small boys. This behaviour
reached a peak during rugby season and a schoolmaster would have a
gleam in his eye as he thrashed a miscreant who blasphemed the
establishment by going skateboarding during holy scrumdown.

Homosexuality in Rugby? my that must have really trashed a holy cow. I
recall attempting to discuss Cecil John Rhodes alleged homosexuality
in a bar in the former Rhodesia in the late 1970's; Your endeavour
must have developed a similar reaction, however I would remark that
members of 3 Commando of the Rhodesian Light Infantry tended to be a
little bit more stern in their responses than a few sexually
frustrated school masters. Well maybe not, the odds were more evened
out in my circumstances, it was only three to one, and one of the guys
was easy meat due to a rugby injury.

In the Army I was forced to play Rugby, well coerced was more like it
as it was more pleasant than "drill" marching excercises. I did well
as I have a naturally big athletic frame (Artilleryman) I scored three
tries for my team and one against. Nobody explained the change sides
at half time rule to me.

So maybe I could be described as an ex-rugby player, as their
proselytisers were more forceful than the Cricketers.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-25 09:13:58 UTC

Post by Skokkie
Truly, both the spirit of Athie and that of Rational watched over you
there. As I crest the wave of my mid life crises (crisises?) I become
ever more convinced of the folly of forcing young children to engage
in this behaviour that can have a very negative impact on their
orthopaedic development. And now when most of us skip towards our
second childhood with glee, here come the old "Rugger Buggers", with
pot bellies from years of standing in sports club bars, they are often
only barely mobile due to back injuries and eroded knee cartilages.
Did your article further examine the significance of the strange men
who would take such delight in whipping small boys. This behaviour
reached a peak during rugby season and a schoolmaster would have a
gleam in his eye as he thrashed a miscreant who blasphemed the
establishment by going skateboarding during holy scrumdown.

Whipping and being whipped are the vice-anglaise.

Post by Skokkie
Homosexuality in Rugby? my that must have really trashed a holy cow. I
recall attempting to discuss Cecil John Rhodes alleged homosexuality
in a bar in the former Rhodesia in the late 1970's; Your endeavour
must have developed a similar reaction, however I would remark that
members of 3 Commando of the Rhodesian Light Infantry tended to be a
little bit more stern in their responses than a few sexually
frustrated school masters. Well maybe not, the odds were more evened
out in my circumstances, it was only three to one, and one of the guys
was easy meat due to a rugby injury.

I was surprised about the reception my article had, actually, though
only a select few read it. A number of friends of mine at school
turned out to be homosexual, to my surprise as they certainly didn't
admit to it at school - some of them seem very happy with it too.
Strangely, though, they weren't that keen on rugby either. I suspect
rugby is for people who secretly want to be homosexual, but haven't
the balls for it.

Post by Skokkie
In the Army I was forced to play Rugby, well coerced was more like it
as it was more pleasant than "drill" marching excercises. I did well
as I have a naturally big athletic frame (Artilleryman) I scored three
tries for my team and one against. Nobody explained the change sides
at half time rule to me.
So maybe I could be described as an ex-rugby player, as their
proselytisers were more forceful than the Cricketers.

Yes, I can see that. As I've said, in a rational world we wouldn't be
discussing rugby or cricket or theism, so we'd both have to find
something else to be against.

I enjoyed, and enjoy, swimming, but rugby was very unpleasant, since I
was always made a prop-forward. It was true that I couldn't really see
the ball until it was too late - some people didn't believe that my
eyesight was actually that bad, but, when I went for the laser
operation it was -10 diopters which qualified me for free blind-man's
eye tests in the UK (which I thought rather peculiar as you don't need
to test the eyesight of a genuinely blind person, but, apparently,
three quarters blind is good enough to qualify).

Moira de Swardt

2007-02-25 11:45:54 UTC

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
I was surprised about the reception my article had, actually,

though

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
only a select few read it. A number of friends of mine at school
turned out to be homosexual, to my surprise as they certainly

didn't

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
admit to it at school - some of them seem very happy with it too.
Strangely, though, they weren't that keen on rugby either. I

suspect

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
rugby is for people who secretly want to be homosexual, but

haven't

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
the balls for it.

I've had a few gay male friends who enjoyed rugby, but most
preferred cooking and/or music. Mind you, I've got a lot of
straight male friends who prefer cooking and/or music to rugby.

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
I enjoyed, and enjoy, swimming, but rugby was very unpleasant,

since I

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
was always made a prop-forward. It was true that I couldn't really see
the ball until it was too late - some people didn't believe that my
eyesight was actually that bad, but, when I went for the laser
operation it was -10 diopters which qualified me for free

blind-man's

Post by Peter H.M. Brooks
eye tests in the UK (which I thought rather peculiar as you don't need
to test the eyesight of a genuinely blind person, but, apparently,
three quarters blind is good enough to qualify).

I am only approximately -5 (one eye a bit worse and the other a bit
better, and not quite Coke bottle glasses, but still very thick and
heavy lenses unless I get the expensive high refractive glass, which
I always do) and feel blind as a bat without my spectacles. I also
enjoy swimming. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that my
parents were both provincial swimmers, or that swimming was a sport
I could be good at without glasses. Or a combination of both.

--
Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.

Peter H.M. Brooks

2007-02-25 13:11:30 UTC

Post by Moira de Swardt
I am only approximately -5 (one eye a bit worse and the other a bit
better, and not quite Coke bottle glasses, but still very thick and
heavy lenses unless I get the expensive high refractive glass, which
I always do) and feel blind as a bat without my spectacles. I also
enjoy swimming. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that my
parents were both provincial swimmers, or that swimming was a sport
I could be good at without glasses. Or a combination of both.

It could be connected, you do only have to swim in straight lines!
Actually, since having the laser eye operation, I've found swimming
even more of a pleasure - I'd always found it very solitary, now I see
other people in the pool and even at the sides, it makes it all rather
friendly. I also love the clear sharpness of the shadows and the
clarity of the sparkle - there is an awful lot of pleasure to be got
from seeing things and the vastly intense pain of the three days after
the operation was well worth it. It is miraculous to be able to see
things so clearly, though now I'm starting to need reading glasses it
isn't really a problem, I can still read reasonably sized print in a
bright light without them, which is pretty wonderful too.

Sometimes, at school, only a very few times, boys used to steal my
glasses as a 'joke', they couldn't understand why I hit them quite so
hard and for quite so long when I caught them, but they did avoid the
'joke' after that.

Moira de Swardt

2007-02-25 15:42:17 UTC