From: DocMartian@msn.com (Kevin Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2002 6:01 AM
what do you think bob thinks of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: idrmrsr <idrmrsr@subgenius.com>
1. If it was a Muslim 2 YO, then it qualifies under
"target practice".
Shame on them for bragging, then, if it was just target
practice.
2. Was it disposed of via pitchfork? If not, I would
question their
hygiene practices.
3. Was the family watching? If not, then, they wasted
a Hallmark
moment.
These are the crimes.
[*]
-----
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Extenuating circumstances (in speaking for the
defense):
A. While general practice is "catch and release"
or
"catch, break arm and release", please note
that the
territories have no minimum on their hunting license,
so bagging immature harvests, while tacky, is not
per se, a fineable offense. In that it was not done
in Israel proper, they should get a pass.
B. Pitchforking is best left to the professionals,
who would seldom use the technique except when loading
or offloading a truck. Bayonets are also right out
as modern light arms are easily damaged by barrel
warp. Besides, kosher law dictates that babies be
bled before being frozen and shouldn't be harvested
more than 3 months before Passover, to avoid freezer
burn. Most Rabbis insist that this be done exclusively
through the neck.
C. The family couldn't watch as Ticketmaster tries
to discourage SRO and the corporate block holdings
were bought up well in advance of the selection of
victim. So the actual soldaten are less to blame
then the venue monopoly.
--
"This hedgehog will live with us!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu>
Kevin Anderson wrote:
>
> what do you think bob thinks of that.
One less maser charge = -$135.00 in phosphate and
chlorine savings
and -$1.35 transport cost. RSVP Xists.
Also, probably time to get into the adoption-for-qat racket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
>Kevin Anderson wrote:
>
> what do you think bob thinks of that.
The way I heard the story he was bearing down on them
with a sharpened
spork raised for a killing stroke and a maniacal look
in his eyes.
They train'em young out there.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"cry BORING! and let slip the dogs of plonk".
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: iDRMRSR <alex.i.thymia@depression.org>
>>I urge you to contact your nearest militray recruiter today
Yes, I'm sure they'll let a fat diabetic 52 YO right
in there. There's
not much more left for me to do at my age than cheer
the youngsters on,
anyhow. But I would be terribly useful for suicide
maneuvers.
I admit, one time, the argument that if you think like
I do, then one
day someone will come after ME just like the Nazis and
so on. Heh,
well, look around.
The Islamics are after US (and U.S.). They aren't fighting
for land,
money, women, sea ports, and aren't willing to negociate.
They just
want US dead. WE are the ones they are coming after.
Because we look at pr0n, eat pork, dance, drink, charge
interest on
loans, let women vote, and take pictures! The only
solution to this is
that one party annihilate the other. The quicker we
get that over with,
the sooner we can get back to the good stuff.
Actually, if we don't wipe them out, who is going to
make MY insulin?
Some fucking Raghead? How about batteries for your
mom's pacemaker?
Some Sheik? It IS our lives at stake here. They haven't
got the brains
to get out of a camel's rectum. And don't talk to me
about algebra.
They even have to steal our high-tech weapons. Fuck
em.
[*]
-----
PS why the fuck am I replying to you anyhow? I must
be that much of an
egotist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
"Constable of Indefinite Timeframes, Kevan "Elder
G" Smith"
<cuthulu@shreve.net> wrote in message
:
>
>> The Islamics (sic) are after US (and U.S.).
They aren't fighting for land,
>> money, women, sea ports, and aren't willing
to negociate. They just
>> want US dead. WE are the ones they are coming
after.
>
> Islamic fundamentalists are a small part of Islam.
Many millions more
> moslems don't give a rats ass what you do than
want to kill you.
> You're just a bigot when it comes to this issue,
so I don't expect to
> convince you. But, you are wrong.
I know that living through the 90's has made it seem
horribly unfashionable
to hate anyone, or to categorize any group for any characteristic.
However,
all muslims do follow Mohammed, their Prophet. It's
not being a bigot to
say that. Following Mohammed is what makes them muslims.
If they didn't
follow him, they wouldn't be muslims, fundamentalist
or otherwise.
So, before you go out of your way to defend muslims,
why not read The Life
of Mohammed and the Koran? If you do, you will find
that as iDRMRSR has
pointed out, there are differences between our two cultures
that will never
be settled through peaceful means. The basic assumptions
are too different.
You can either be a champion of women's rights, or of
muslim rights. You
cannot support both.
And you can just stop composing your reply right now.
The one where you say
how there are plenty of happy muslim women, and how
you even know some of
them and they love being muslim. Their apparent or
real happiness has
nothing to do with whether or not they are oppressed.
Slave owners always
point out the happiness of their slaves, and even have
examples ready to
demonstrate this happiness for visitors.
--
So, the proper signature delimiter is the way mine is
("-- ") and not
the way yours is ("--"). -- Some Linux
Freak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
> So, it appears that muslim countries were just
as willing to sign as
> non-muslim countries.
Oh come ON! Even YOU can't expect to pull THAT one
over on us! You know
damn well that resolution has no teeth and that countries
are flouting it
every day with impunity. I'm not going to do the research
for you because I
am sitting here naked waiting for my tea, but just you
go and look at the
UN's list of the worst VIOLATORS of that very same agreement.
As for your original premise that Muslims are no better
than Christians,
well DUH! I don't go around defending THEM either!
Although if you read the words of the Man the Christians
follow, you WILL
see all kinds of indications that unlike Mohammed, Jesus
thought human
rights were groovy and even allowed women to be his
disciples.
Obviously, no religion is going to pop up to be the
champion of human
rights! And why should it?! Religions are for recreation
and refreshment,
not serious government policy. Which is why it was
the UN, and not the
United Mosques or the United Churches that came up with
the Human Rights
Declaration in the first place!!
For centuries the Pope told men it was all right to
beat women as long as
they didn't do it too hard, and the marriage contract
lasted forever no
matter how unhappy the woman was, and Christians went
around slaughtering
people because they were heathens. The Muslims are
in that stage right now,
probably because they got started 600 years later than
the Christians.
Maybe in another 600 years they'll be harmless but right
now they're as
dangerous as Christianity was in the 12th century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:53:46 GMT, "Rev. Magdalen"
<magdalen@subgenius.com> wrote:
>Although if you read the words of the Man the Christians
follow, you WILL
>see all kinds of indications that unlike Mohammed,
Jesus thought human
>rights were groovy and even allowed women to be
his disciples.
>
Yeah ... that lasted about five minutes
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
> The question is, alt.slack, a black hole for the
mind or just
> electronic crack for our pipes?
i have written some incredibly poor sentences in my
time
amongst the chaff and yet i can tell if that is a question?
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: zubair@mediaone.net (munyas)
"Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com> wrote in message news:<eAuA9.318212$8o3.9520200@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>The Muslims are in that stage right now,
> probably because they got started 600 years later
than the Christians.
> Maybe in another 600 years they'll be harmless
but right now they're as
> dangerous as Christianity was in the 12th century.
Christians were and are dangerous because the bible says:
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have; do
not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and
infant, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam 15:2-3).
"But as for the towns of these peoples that the
Lord your God is
giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything
that breathes
remain alive." Deutronomy 20
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who
has slept with a man.
But save for yourself every girl who has not slept with
a man."
Numbers 31:17-18
Please elaborate the 'context' that may justify:
"kill all the boys"
"kill every woman"
Numbers 31
"you must not let anything that breathes remain alive." Deutronomy 20
"kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox
and sheep, camel and
donkey" (1 Sam 15:2-3).
Happy exegesis!
"A thorough perusal of the bible is the cure for
Christianity." Mark
Twain
Zube
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fossil_1984@hotmail.com (chaosisrael)
"ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net> wrote in message news:<LQCdnS7JidGYD0-gXTWc3g@lmi.net>...
"Snow niggers."
ICKNIFE, you're brilliant.
Totally fucking evil, but still.
--
C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
"nenslo" <nenslo@yahooX.com> wrote in
message
news:3DD1FF46.6740AEAD@yahooX.com
>>
>>
>
> And we don't want to be subject to other people's
ideas of what's
> fashionable, NO MATTER WHO HAS TO DIE.
On the contrary, I always try to be fashionable, however
in this case it is
not possible. Sometimes one has to step forward and
make fashion, rather
than follow it.
> You only earn the privilege of suggesting people
do that if you have
> done it yourself. I would ask if you have, but
I already know. You
> haven't even read the fucking Bible all the way
through. I wonder if
> you have read one book this year.
Of course I've read all of them, as well as about five
books a week every
week for most of my life. If you don't believe me,
just sign up to be a
TIPS informant and you'll have access to my library
records. Or you can
check my Deja Mountain to see the many thrilling reports
I gave to alt.slack
summarizing The Life of Muhammed as I read it.
>
>> You can either be a champion of women's rights,
or of muslim rights.
>> You cannot support both.
>
> There are no shades of gray, NO, NOT ONE!
No, there really aren't. Shades of gray are something
that sophisticated
cultures ruled by non-religious governments have.
Cultures ruled by
religions have very definite rules about right and wrong,
and the places of
their members in society.
>
>>
>> And you can just stop composing your reply
right now. The one where
>> you say how there are plenty of happy muslim
women, and how you even
>> know some of them and they love being muslim.
Their apparent or
>> real happiness has nothing to do with whether
or not they are
>> oppressed. Slave owners always point out the
happiness of their
>> slaves, and even have examples ready to demonstrate
this happiness
>> for visitors.
>>
> You show remarkable facility in refuting arguments
that others have
> not made - possibly because it is so much easier
to refute arguments
> when you write them yourself.
I have been reading Kevan's posts for years and I know
what he would say in
reply to what I said, so I felt qualified to just go
ahead and answer that
reply before he even said it. You'll notice that he
did not refute the fact
that that is what he would have said in reply to me.
>
> It is the nature of human existence that the vast
majority are
> oppressed by a minuscule minority elite.
BWAAAAHAAAAAA. Go tell that to the wiccans and see
if they let you out of
their magic circle alive. It's really pompous and stupid
to make blanket
statements about "the nature of human existence"
when we only have accurate
records of human history going back a few thousand years,
with gaps of
centuries in even that record. Neither you nor I know
what happened in the
Dark Ages, and I am free to believe that it was a time
of benevolent
matriarchy or communes, just as you obviously believe
the patriarchal myth
that it was a time of brutality and oppression. Rome
was not the first
civilization. Sumer probably wasn't either. You can't
point to the past
and say "That is all we are capable of".
The only way to find out whether
or not humans can live without being oppressed by a
miniscule minority elite
is to try it and find out. But first you have to convince
the elite that
this would be a good experiment.
>I consider it an especially
> despicable aspect of human nature that some of
us are willing to use
> the welfare of an oppressed minority as a justification
for other
> people to kill people who are themselves subject
to that same
> oppression.
I didn't say we ought to kill the Muslims. I said the
differences between
our cultures were not going to be settled by peaceful
means. And they
won't. The Muslims are going to keep trying to kill
us until they get over
themselves, just like the Christians did eight centuries
ago. I'm against
all the killing! I might be one of the killed! But
my perception of the
situation is that we are so abhorrent to them that they
are not going to
stop trying to kill us.
>It's easy to do that from the safety of your own
home.
> It all seems so clear cut and simple WHEN YOU ARE
NOT ACTUALLY
> INVOLVED.
I fly on airplanes. That makes me involved.
>
> Please explain how you know what slave owners "always"
do, and which
> slave owners you mean exactly.
Well you see, at the University of Texas, in my Literary
Studies
concentration on Southern Literature, African American
Literature, and the
History of Texas, we read a lot of slave narratives
as well as speeches and
articles written by slave owners in the American South.
The custom of
showing off happy slaves to visitors in order to prove
that slavery was
benevolent was widespread and there is much documentation
of it.
You're right that I probably shouldn't have said "always".
I did not study
in depth the slavery customs of other nations. Perhaps
there are a people
somewhere where the slave owners are so powerful and
brutal that they show
casual visitors how unhappy their slaves are, and allow
the slaves to pour
out their hearts to them. But I would think that would
be against the slave
owner's interests.
> No, you see that is another snide
> trick on my part because you don't know any slave
owners, have never
> met one, never even saw one on TV, in fact that
statement is wholly
> specious and imaginary. You aren't even thinking
with the girl part
> of your brain at this point, you are thinking with
the IDIOT part.
You know the thing that pisses you off the most about
me is that I am just
as smart as you, and yet my conclusions are the complete
opposite of yours.
It's almost like there's more than one right answer
in this world!
Seriously, if you really want to piss me off, you should
go back to making
fun of my body, because I'm more insecure about that
than about my
intelligence. I know that I am smarter than 99.99%
of all humans. I have
the paperwork and scars to prove it. But you know what?
Being smart isn't
all it's cracked up to be. It's not as great as being
able to suck cock
really well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KRONOS <null@void.com>
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, magdalen@subgenius.com wrote:
>--
>So, the proper signature delimiter is the way mine
is ("-- ") and not
>the way yours is ("--"). -- Some Linux
Freak
Hey! What do think those robots you got your heart set
on are going to
be running? Windows? HAR HAR HAR-I think not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
It's rare that wars actually start or continue because
one people are
abhorrent to another. It certainly facilitates the
process but I
don't think it is ever a real cause.
Were the Japanese really that abhorrent to us in the
40's? We
-learned- to hate them. For a couple years they were
slavering
buck-toothed hunchbacked yellow gorillas with not desire
but to ravage
white women, then within a few years after the war they
transformed
again into a noble ancient culture, when it was more
convenient for
our economic and political aims for them to be.
Were the Jews that abhorrent to the Germans in the 30's
and 40's?
There was certainly a lot of dislike of them and there
always has been
in Europe, but it wasn't the cause of the death camps,
but rather a
facilitator of the process. They were a convenient
political target,
and the technique was a rousing success on a political
level.
Undoubtedly it was also a great success on an economic
level, Jews
really were disproportionately wealthy and their removal
undoubtedly
had a rousing effect on the pre-war German economy.
War is a tool of politics, and politics is usually a
tool of
economics.
The muslim world being whipped into hatred of us is
basically the same
game as anti-Japanese propaganda in the second world
war or
anti-Jewish propaganda.
Look for the man behind the curtain, Mags.
The middle east is a very poor part of the world, despite
their
controlling the life blood of our society; fossil fuel.
And
politically they know they are just sand niggers to
us. Their
national sovereignty will be tacitly tolerated or raped
outright by
us, never accepted, and it doesn't matter what they
do. Terrorism
might not be a succesful tactic but it is their only
available tactic.
The rest is all show business.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Godwin was a NAZI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Joe Cosby wrote:
>
> The middle east is a very poor part of the world...
nu-monet's rule wins out:
"Nature abhors a peasant."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
specially ones that smell bad.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Law is a collection of social bargains. We trade the
freedom to enter the homes of
other people for the right to deny unwanted intruders
access to our homes. We trade
the freedom to kill anyone we wish for the assurance
that we ourselves will not be
murdered. Anyone who chooses to set aside the restrictions
of law in so doing
absolves him or herself of its protections as well.
If an armed intruder breaks into your
home, it's reasonable to assume that they do so wearing
a target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> Neither you nor I know what happened in the
> Dark Ages, and I am free to believe that it was
a time of benevolent
> matriarchy or communes, just as you obviously believe
the patriarchal myth
> that it was a time of brutality and oppression.
You are free to believe any dumbass bullshit you like,
and you have
absolutely no idea what I believe. I read the Koran
too, long before
you ever heard of Islam, but I didn't read it to pick
out flaws and
prove it evil or wrong. I read it to learn what it
said. I learned
that is says thousands of things, and anyone can take
any of them out of
context to prove whatever they like. Legalistic scriptures
like those
written in the middle east did and do not CREATE a social
order. They
are essentially conservative in nature, so they record
and codify a
PRE-EXISTING social order which was already archaic
at the time of
writing. Idealizing an archaic society is common in
conservative
thought. That is the origin of the oppressive social
order which many of
us oppose. Many people find a satisfaction and a freedom
from
responsibility under an authoritarian regime which compensates
for the
sacrifices involved. Many don't.
> Rome was not the first
> civilization. Sumer probably wasn't either. You
can't point to the past
> and say "That is all we are capable of".
The only way to find out whether
> or not humans can live without being oppressed
by a miniscule minority elite
> is to try it and find out.
I did not say "That is all we are capable of,"
I said that is how it
is. There is no judgmental or emotional component to
that statement.
You CAN point to the past and present and say "That
is how it is." You
don't have to know what the first civilization was or
create an
impossible imaginary experiment to do that.
>
> I didn't say we ought to kill the Muslims. I said
the differences between
> our cultures were not going to be settled by peaceful
means. And they
> won't. The Muslims are going to keep trying to
kill us until they get over
> themselves, just like the Christians did eight
centuries ago. I'm against
> all the killing! I might be one of the killed!
But my perception of the
> situation is that we are so abhorrent to them that
they are not going to
> stop trying to kill us.
The differences between our cultures are not going to
be settled at
all. They are different cultures. Some Muslims have
killed and will
kill people. To treat an entire class of people, millions
and millions
of people, as if they were all the same as a very small
minority is what
prejudice IS. Your use of "we" and "they"
is ignorant reactionary
prejudice.
>
> >It's easy to do that from the safety of your
own home.
> > It all seems so clear cut and simple WHEN
YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY
> > INVOLVED.
>
> I fly on airplanes. That makes me involved.
Flying on airplanes makes you involved in the rights of muslim women.
> Well you see, at the University of Texas, in my
Literary Studies
> concentration on Southern Literature, African American
Literature, and the
> History of Texas, we read a lot of slave narratives
as well as speeches and
> articles written by slave owners in the American
South. The custom of
> showing off happy slaves to visitors in order to
prove that slavery was
> benevolent was widespread and there is much documentation
of it.
You read documents written by SOME slaves and owners
in the AMERICAN
SOUTH at a time when many slave owners felt it necessary
to prove that
slavery was not inherently evil. That is a circumstance
which appears
to be unique to the 19th century.
>
> You're right that I probably shouldn't have said
"always". I did not study
> in depth the slavery customs of other nations.
Perhaps there are a people
> somewhere where the slave owners are so powerful
and brutal that they show
> casual visitors how unhappy their slaves are, and
allow the slaves to pour
> out their hearts to them. But I would think that
would be against the slave
> owner's interests.
Treating an entire class of people as if they are all
the same, based on
limited knowledge of one small group, is a fundamental
error. The
commercial slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries was an
historical aberration.
>
> > No, you see that is another snide
> > trick on my part because you don't know any
slave owners, have never
> > met one, never even saw one on TV, in fact
that statement is wholly
> > specious and imaginary. You aren't even thinking
with the girl part
> > of your brain at this point, you are thinking
with the IDIOT part.
>
> You know the thing that pisses you off the most
about me is that I am just
> as smart as you, and yet my conclusions are the
complete opposite of yours.
> It's almost like there's more than one right answer
in this world!
I'm not pissed off at you. EMPHASIS IS NOT EMOTION.
You may have an
intellectual capacity equal or superior to mine but
your ability to
construct a logical argument is very poor, and you seem
to consider
opinion and prejudice to be the same thing as fact.
I have pointed out
fundamental factual errors in your statements and fallacies
in your
arguments, such as the use of ALL where SOME may be
correct. You are
free to have and state any opinion you like but opinion
is not fact.
>
> Seriously, if you really want to piss me off, you
should go back to making
> fun of my body, because I'm more insecure about
that than about my
> intelligence. I know that I am smarter than 99.99%
of all humans. I have
> the paperwork and scars to prove it. But you know
what? Being smart isn't
> all it's cracked up to be. It's not as great as
being able to suck cock
> really well.
I have no interest in pissing you off. If you make
statements which are
fundamentally erroneous, or based on fallacious reasoning,
I will point
it out if I feel like it. I don't know what test to
take or scars to
get to "prove" how smart I am. Any reasonably
clever person can learn
to construct a coherent argument if they want to, but
it takes a certain
type of self awareness to strive to purge oneself of
prejudice. Every
time a person speaks of "we" and "they"
on a broad sociocultural level
or make a statement of any kind which treats an entire
class of people
as if they were all alike, that's prejudice. Prejudice
is willful
ignorance, and that's stupidity of the worst sort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
"ICEKNIFE" <icNOekSPAMnife@lmi.net> wrote
> "OUR culture"? Shit, shaddap, I hate
it when you come off stupider
> than me.
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, Islam is oppressive
as hell BY YOUR
> STANDARDS to both men and women. Consider what
the word means, and
> stop going around liberating people who don't fucking
want to be
> liberated by imperialist culturally hide-bound
pink FROOTBATS. It's a
> whole friggin' B&D religion with God as Dom,
let them have their
> frooty ideas.
Just as you cannot legally authorize someone to remove
your testicles if
they are not a doctor, so too you cannot legally authorize
someone to
oppress you. All men are endowed by their creator
with certain inalienable
rights, and if you try to alienate those rights from
the people they belong
to, you're messing with Him. And since He hasn't really
done any
ass-kicking in a long time, the UN has graciously stepped
in to set things
right. If only the US cared more about inalienable
rights than oil, we
wouldn't even have to have this discussion!
>What the fuck do you mean by OUR culture?
I mean 'Merikuh ya dirty pinko commie!!
>
> ah, fuck pinks dead anyway. you can rope em, but
yuh caint ride em or
> eat em, so why bother?
Yeh can fuck em. It ain't wrong! They likes it!
--
Rev. Magdalen
Original file name: israel shot a two yea.txt - converted on Friday, 13 June 2003, 22:41
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters