Tinkerntom wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:

I am desiring to address your post again, and so have reopened it. If
you are interested to respond, I would desire to hear from you. I
posted to this before, but I kept getting a server error so apparently
it never went through, at least Google is not showing it. If you with
your news service did receive something earlier, I would like to know.
It all works good when it works good, but when its bad, so sorry!

==============
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.

Yes, and Good.

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.

I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and
caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. I
regret that I was the one that had to knock you on the silly noggen,
but if it provides stimulation for you to consider that some of your
other notions may not be correct, then I hope you will forgive me for
upsetting your tidy little world!


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?)

I referred you to limited scriptures referring specifically to capital
punishment, which you then made certain conclusions about the nature of
God in general, and of JC in particular. There are many more scriptures
to be examined before we could determine such a broad subject, and
certainly not to be determined by your preconceived ideas based on your
predjudice and nothing I said and/or scripture I have todate even
referred to, would support your jumps in logic.

And in fact, it appears, that you would not actually be willing to
accept the scriptures I do present to you as being authoritative, and
that I know what I am talking about. I would rather you tell me that
you think that I am full of ****, than for you to patronize me. In the
proof of logic, you should provide your own proof. If I provide the
proof for your position, you would not know if I am blowing smoke up
your ass, because you don't have any basis to judge the validity or
not, of what I am saying. And hence any conclusion you make, is you
just trying to blow smoke up mine!

In fact, the further logical conclusion I pointed you to, if you really
cared, is that the very death penalty, resulted in the greatest acts of
love that have ever been displayed, by Christ, and have inspired many
other men to great acts of love as well. Hardly basis for your
following conclusion if you really care!

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

See you demonstrate that you are not qualified to jump to any valid
conclusions, unless you by accident land on one. You tell me, you are
the stat man, what are the chances of landing on a valid conclusion
when you jump blind folded, in the dark, and your launch pad is
nonexistant. You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would
look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you
even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is
miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. I am not so good at
crunching numbers, would you please do the honors?

Your conclusion in your last paragraph, illustrates my concern about
you being able to make valid conclusions. You concluded that I wanted
you to conclude that JC "is not a charitable and forgiving God." You
have heard enough from me recently to know that that is not a logical
conclusion from other things I have said, and so your assumtions and
conclusions must be faulted to allow you to arrive at that conclusion.
But you posted your faulted conclusion none the less, indicating an
unwillingness to consider all the data, or a preconceived notion of
what conclusion you wanted to arrive at; the first intellectually
slothful at best, and the second intellectually dishonest at worst. I
prefer to think better of you, and would be willing to look at these
issues further if you desire.

Now if you don't care, and don't desire, and really don't want to deal
honestly with these issues, or even the issue of Capital Punishment, I
am willing to allow you to concede, that you really are not prepared to
present these concerns and issues, and we can go happily on our way.

That does not mean, that you do not have valid concerns and issues that
would be beneficial to consider. If you would like to consider any of
your other lefty ideas, I am still open. Respectfully TnT

KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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 don=B9t
exist. In fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

I know they exist.

This is my point, it is not a gun culture.


KMAN, if I could ask a question, real quick. I heard on the news the
other day about a shoot out up there in Canada somewhere, something
about 4 mounties getting killed. Have you heard anything further. I
have not had time to research the story, but if I recall, the man
evidently shot himself. But No other details, about where he got his
gun, what else was going on. TnT

KMAN wrote:
"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.

Can you support that with any documentation, or proof, or is it just
BS.

I played chess, which is typically a game between two individuals. I
compensated by playing multiple games at the same time.

Some games were very short lived, but it allowed us to start another
game immediately. These were the best games though, because usually the
gamesters were not so vested in winning, and just wanted to have fun.

Other games lasted for quite awhile, and seemed to be enjoyable to all
involved, who also typically wanted to immediately wanted to play again
in order to redeem their apparently shattered egoes. They should have
known better than to put their egoes on the line. I am not sure why
they were so willing to put their egoes on the line again, if it hurt
so much the last time. Eventually they apparently did not enjoy the
game so much and would get all mean and nasty over a game. It is still
a mystery to me!

I eventually wearied of playing on a flat static game board though and
sought greater challenges. I found the tableau of our mind very
interesting and stimulating. You can engage each other where ever you
find yourselves, and can even use the electronic media. It is a
wonderful, exciting world that we live in, with all the eligible
challengers. TnT

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

KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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.

I know they exist.

This is my point, it is not a gun culture.


KMAN, if I could ask a question, real quick. I heard on the news the
other day about a shoot out up there in Canada somewhere, something
about 4 mounties getting killed. Have you heard anything further.

Of course, Tinkerntom. It's on the front page of every paper and the lead on
every newscast.

have not had time to research the story, but if I recall, the man
evidently shot himself. But No other details, about where he got his
gun, what else was going on. TnT

He was a gun nut who hated the police.

The officers thought he was not on the property and they were ambushed.

One of the funerals is today.

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

KMAN wrote:
"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.

Can you support that with any documentation, or proof, or is it just
BS.

Humour, Tinkerntom. I'll explain.

The idea is that you have a bit of trouble being brief, and that you also
like to constrain others through rules that meet your personal needs. I
believe there is a general sense of this among all those that communicate
with you here, but let's forget that, and just say that this is a
description that I have arrived at from interacting with you.

Your propensity for long-windedness, combined with your need for rules that
you alone define, could lead one to humorously assume that you spent time
alone because the other children could not possible put up with it all.

I played chess, which is typically a game between two individuals. I
compensated by playing multiple games at the same time.

Some games were very short lived, but it allowed us to start another
game immediately. These were the best games though, because usually the
gamesters were not so vested in winning, and just wanted to have fun.

Other games lasted for quite awhile, and seemed to be enjoyable to all
involved, who also typically wanted to immediately wanted to play again
in order to redeem their apparently shattered egoes. They should have
known better than to put their egoes on the line. I am not sure why
they were so willing to put their egoes on the line again, if it hurt
so much the last time. Eventually they apparently did not enjoy the
game so much and would get all mean and nasty over a game. It is still
a mystery to me!

I eventually wearied of playing on a flat static game board though and
sought greater challenges. I found the tableau of our mind very
interesting and stimulating. You can engage each other where ever you
find yourselves, and can even use the electronic media. It is a
wonderful, exciting world that we live in, with all the eligible
challengers. TnT

Uh. Certainly.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Oh how I love Usenet when Scott Weiser says:
==============
...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. AT Mar 7, 12:46 pm
==================

But, almost 8 hours later Scott Weiser states:
==============================
The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what
conduct
is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of
government and
law

Scott Weiser AT Mar 7, 8:13 pm
===========================

So, now Scott Weiser needs to decide if governments can make decisions
about the ownership of guns (as per his 8:13 comment) OR if NO ONE (not
even the aforementioned government) has the right to deny him his gun
ownership.

Which is it to be, Scott?

It's both.

Our government is constrained in its power by our fundamental organizing
documents. Within the authority granted to the government by the people, the
government has wide authority. But it cannot step one inch outside the
boundary we the people have established. There is a method for changing
those fundamental documents, and yes, it is possible for society to decide
to abrogate fundamental rights. Our Constitution includes within it the
seeds of its own destruction, and at the core, the people have the right to
decide what kind of government they will live under.

Then again, the people, or some sub-set of them, can decide to resist any
attempt to modify our fundamental documents in ways which abrogate
fundamental rights. It's called the "right of revolution."

The difference between most societies and the US is that we openly recognize
this right of revolution, and we have set things up to make revolution
always present and cogent threat to attempts to infringe fundamental rights
or impose tyranny.

That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment. It is designed to
ensure that the whole populace is well armed at all times and thus fully
capable of rising up in arms against a government that has stepped beyond
the boundaries set for it.

As to who had the right of revolution, the answer is that each of us does.
The only requirement for the legitimate use of the right of revolution is
that you have to win. If you lose, you're a traitor and a criminal and you
usually get killed. That's the check and balance on the right of revolution.

Timothy McVeigh exercised the right of revolution, but he failed in his
quest to foment a general uprising against what he felt was a tyrannical,
illegitimate government. Thus, instead of being a revolutionary hero like
Washington, he's a terrorist traitor, and now he's dead. That's the way the
system works.

This does not mean, however, that the right to keep and bear arms is
entirely free of reasonable regulation in the public interest. But such
regulation must be constrained to the regulation of the time, place and
manner of bearing and using arms only. Such regulations may not legitimately
restrict or deny the right to peaceably keep and bear any and all arms
appropriate for self defense or military use. Thus, a law may legitimately
forbid the firing of a weapon for purposes of other than necessary self
defense in crowded urban areas. But the law may not legitimately forbid a
person from carrying arms in crowded urban areas, nor may the law forbid the
peaceable ownership and possession of arms, absent some justification caused
by the malfeasance of the individual.
--
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

On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Give it time.

There you go again - using predictinos about the future to
try to prove a point about the past. Dickhead.

Mike

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/7/05 6:06 PM:


"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mark H. Bowen" wrote in
message
.. .
Rick,

Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting
for health
care, because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare
system?
======================
Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper?

Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into
play in my
question?

No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults.
My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the
deliberate
lies that
kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in
Canada.

KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert
that "no one
[is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada."
=====================
No, that isn't what his latest assertion have been all about.
I
suggest you read with a little more comprehension. He has
been
asserting that he never claimed that no one is WAITING for
treatment in Canada.

Which is correct. I never did. The only quote you have posted
from me was
made in response to your interpretation of a story about people
in
Newfoundland waiting for a specific type of test while under a
doctor's
care.
=======================
No fool, you've been shown that your reply was not when I posted
about nfld waiting. You posted your lie while we where
discussiong the waiting briought on by the conveninece of the
opatient vs the 'convenience' of the health system.


Whether my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we
know
what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for
treatment. Since
it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to
wait for
treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said,
nor believe,
that no one in Canada is waiting.

You know I never said any such thing. You are making a
deliberate false
accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to
do so.
==================
You should know all about being those things, liarman...

On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any reasonable
source for AIDS statistics will point that out.

It is now. It wasn't in the beginning.

Bull**** again - the statistics for Africa have always overwhelmed
those of America and AIDS in Africa is overwhelmingly transmitted
between heterosexuals.

I wasn't blaming anybody for anything, I was merely stating some facts.

Not when you make up the "facts".

The point is that a society is not compelled to sanction every possible
behavior by an individual.

Permitting and sanctioning are two different things.

Mike

On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And does it have to say "this is what God looks like" in order for God to
decide to look like something else? What makes you think that God is
constrained by the words in a book?

It is clearly a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.
TinkernTom has already pointed out that what I am talking
about is over your head.

Mike