"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

bearsbuddy wrote:
I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

You do know that en passant capture isn't possible within the parameters of
Usenet, right?

Mark

KMAN wrote:
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it
with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above
post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if
you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began
explaining
what he expected of the other game participants.

They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished.

But then he could always find someone else to play with, who was
willing to play by the rules, and especially rules #1 thru #10.

Rule #1 No name calling. If name calling becomes the predominant
feature of the game, the game is no longer fun, intereresting, and
thought provoking. The game can be called for name calling!

Rule #2 Since denigrating statements do not contribute to the subject
being discussed, but are typically diversions by those unable to
support their own position, and typically do not add to the content of
the discussion in a substantive way, continued use of denigrating
statements can result in the game being called.

Rule #3 Rules #1 and #2 can be applied to the current game, or to
concurrent games being played, where the violations occur, that become
distracting to the current game, and are cause for the current game to
be called.

Rule #4 Any topic is open to discussion if both parties agree, and are
willing to provide supporting documentation as requested by other
gamesters. Since failure to provide, results in unsupported BS
littering the game field, which the various gamesters may step in,
over, around, completely ignore, or stop the game momentarily to clean
up. If all this fails, and the gamesters cannot determine a mutually
acceptable agreement and resolution of the BS, the game may be called.

#5 Other Rules can and will be made up by any participant, as the game
progresses, and as applied to the current game, may result in the
current game being called.

#6 Excessive Rules can result in the game being called!

#7 Enforcement of the rules is up to, and at the discreation of each
gamester, allowing him/her, to call the game as far as his
participation, if others choose to continue to play, that is at there
descreation.

#8 The Game can be played as long as there are at least two
participants who have not called the game or conceded.

#9 Any Gamester, may set on the sidelines for any indeterminate amount
of time, and may rejoin the game at any time, and if all others have
called the game, or conceded, may attempt to restart the game at any
time another gamester can be found willing to play.

#10 Have Fun!

Thanks for your interest. TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


So having said these things, I would like you to restate your
position,
and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it
with
the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above
post,
and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if
you
will. TnT

I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child!

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began
explaining
what he expected of the other game participants.

They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished.

But then he could always find someone else to play with, who was
willing to play by the rules, and especially rules #1 thru #10.

Rule #1 No name calling. If name calling becomes the predominant
feature of the game, the game is no longer fun, intereresting, and
thought provoking. The game can be called for name calling!

Rule #2 Since denigrating statements do not contribute to the subject
being discussed, but are typically diversions by those unable to
support their own position, and typically do not add to the content of
the discussion in a substantive way, continued use of denigrating
statements can result in the game being called.

Rule #3 Rules #1 and #2 can be applied to the current game, or to
concurrent games being played, where the violations occur, that become
distracting to the current game, and are cause for the current game to
be called.

Rule #4 Any topic is open to discussion if both parties agree, and are
willing to provide supporting documentation as requested by other
gamesters. Since failure to provide, results in unsupported BS
littering the game field, which the various gamesters may step in,
over, around, completely ignore, or stop the game momentarily to clean
up. If all this fails, and the gamesters cannot determine a mutually
acceptable agreement and resolution of the BS, the game may be called.

#5 Other Rules can and will be made up by any participant, as the game
progresses, and as applied to the current game, may result in the
current game being called.

#6 Excessive Rules can result in the game being called!

#7 Enforcement of the rules is up to, and at the discreation of each
gamester, allowing him/her, to call the game as far as his
participation, if others choose to continue to play, that is at there
descreation.

#8 The Game can be played as long as there are at least two
participants who have not called the game or conceded.

#9 Any Gamester, may set on the sidelines for any indeterminate amount
of time, and may rejoin the game at any time, and if all others have
called the game, or conceded, may attempt to restart the game at any
time another gamester can be found willing to play.

#10 Have Fun!

Thanks for your interest. TnT

Translation: Tinkerntom spent a lot of time alone.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could
not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow.
I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about
love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your
case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything
but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington"
exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false. You are probably in the
position that until you can present supportable assumptions, that you
can not make any correct and supportable conclusions about the above
discussion. Your observations though are welcome and definitely worth
consideration. TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.
=====================

Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a
discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error
of my thoughts. The end.

As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing
political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could
not
have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow.
I
was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you.

Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian
faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about
love,
charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of
benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be
much more inclined to support liberal policies.

It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture,
that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my
impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only
surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media
presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your
case
that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything
but
loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction
murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the
foregiveness?

So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to
change my view of JC.

Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington"
exercise
with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater
congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your
faith.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink.

Cheers,
frtzw906

I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false. You are probably in the
position that until you can present supportable assumptions, that you
can not make any correct and supportable conclusions about the above
discussion. Your observations though are welcome and definitely worth
consideration. TnT

It's a relief that as a result of all this it has been confirmed that Jesus
Christ would support captital punishment because he is obviously anything
but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving.

Now remind me again why Jesus Christ is such an important figure in
Christianity?

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

It's a relief that as a result of all this it has been confirmed that
Jesus Christ would support captital punishment because he is obviously
anything but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving.

Now remind me again why Jesus Christ is such an important figure in
Christianity?

Cause, without christianity, there would be no state-sanctioned murder--DUH!

Mark --Well, at least no state-sanctioned murder that is acceptable to
civilized humans.--

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

It's a relief that as a result of all this it has been confirmed that
Jesus Christ would support captital punishment because he is obviously
anything but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving.

Now remind me again why Jesus Christ is such an important figure in
Christianity?

Cause, without christianity, there would be no state-sanctioned
murder--DUH!

ROFL. I just spit on my keyboard...fortunately, I was drinking club soda.
Which is what I used to think Jesus would drink. But now I realize he'd be
more of Jack Daniels mean drunk sort of guy, at least the Jesus Christ I am
coming to know through Tinkerntom!

Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink says:
==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty
notions.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out
of my head.

Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?) So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

We must have attended the same schools, cause I came to the same conclusions
as yourself, after reading Tinker's posts.

Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version of the
NT--

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!

Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a gun
in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought into
that
community from outside.

I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun into a place
with no guns.

Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.

I'm not making a utopian argument.

Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there!"

You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian community.

Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have the type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you.

Nice attempt at backpedaling.

I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don¹t exist. In fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.

Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.

Would you be more unsafe? No. Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves?
Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM because
YOU are afraid of guns.

Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally insane to
think like that.

So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun laws in
Canada? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?


You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community does not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.

Mhmm.

How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in Japan to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private ownership of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still occur...and the
number is rising.

How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.

Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into Japan? No? I
didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into Japan,
and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians who are
smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance, no, most
of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them aren't
even manufactured in the US.

But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not being
met even in Japan.


Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence is beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.

Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to non-violence like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine.

Geezus you are a loser.

And you're an ignorant ****wit.

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's
required.

You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though
Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not
to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence
hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan.

Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.

Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

ROFL.

The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.

That's not who is going to kill you.

That's who kills most of the people in the world.

You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of
your own family

Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven.

- or on yourself.

That would be my right, now wouldn't it?

Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.

I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. Nor do the
vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood
running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where
concealed carry is made lawful.

Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round
I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should be
taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky,
and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of
summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day when
you're in public. Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just
once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for
everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to
deny them, ever.

But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the
defenseless should it be necessary.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser