|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a complete and utter asshole he is :-) ==================== ROTFLMAO Really? Then since your lies have continued to be exposed, what does that make you, liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT So, work your magic! All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon, despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a scumbag. ======================== And you have continued this part of the thread because you know you have been proven a liar when you claim that no one dies waiting for treatment. waits that even you now agree occur. And, as I have explained to you, mu opionion is that the doctor in the article does not know what the boys problem is, and needs the test to determine his course of treatment. That you continue to be so jingoistic in defence of the indefencable is what is truly amazingly willful ignorance. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT So, work your magic! All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon, despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a scumbag. I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, ======================== LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an apology. or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, ================== Except that he still lies about no one dying while waiting for treatment. and noone thinks less of you for your mis-speaks. Hey we have all done it, and you acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome. However, I would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in regards to this. However I see no one else choosing to get between you two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based on race. Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy. While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for defending their very lives. Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes of those who make the laws. As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot help or control. Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes. Anti-sodomy laws are based in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated" against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children. Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that is within the purview of the law. So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable. Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to control. On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape. Then again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior. What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize as legitimately within the sphere of state control? -- 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 |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message snip... I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! Unless I am having fun with it Tinkerntom, and not actually on the verge of a nervous breakdown because some twit has a hard on against Canada :-) ===================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! Where have I ever said that fool? I'd bet I spend far more time in Canada than you do in the states. It's you that has proven you hate of anything US, and your unnatural devotion to anything Canadian despite its cost in Candaian lives. I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less of you for your mis-speaks. You just mis-spoke yourself. In the current disagreement, rick is alleging that I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. That is 100% false. I never said that. ====================== Yes, you did, and I have shown you where. In the previous disagreement, I tried to pin rick down on his ramblings against Canadian health care and did not word me question to him very carefully. I would not call that a "mis-speak" either, it was just a carelessly worded question, and I apologized as promised. ===================== No you did not, not in any post I saw, liarman. And, I had no 'ramblings' against the Canadaian health care system. I replied to your "mis-speak" that no Canadaians are dying while waiting for treatment. You then decided to keep up the lie, even when evodence was provided that proved you wrong. Hey we have all done it, and you acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome. Geez, I feel like I was on the verge of going to the gas chamber and Tinkerntom has just pulled me back from the brink. However, I would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in regards to this. Well, you can speak for me as well. Don't worry, it's almost over. However I see no one else choosing to get between you two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT I am never alone in the sandbox. My sandbox is extremely full. Perhaps that's why arguing with a simpleton scumbag like rick is a nice mental break, believe it or not. ====================== LOL And mental is what health problems you know all about, eh liarman? And, if I was so simple you could have ended this the first day. All you had to do was provisde the refutation of the sites that say Canadians die waiting for health care. You didn't, and you have still failed to do that. |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent. Sez The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms and Violence Panel. Notorious anti-gun polemicists. snicker You just are the stereotypical, ignorant gunhugger, aren't you? " WASHINGTON * While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control." You're mindlessly repeating John Lott's false and unsupported claims. You're also plagiarizing Lott's work by failing to provide proper credit. Actually, it was a December 30, 2004 report by WorldNetDaily, and I'm perfectly within my rights to quote from it. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. Quite right, as I said below. This is because registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations and seizures by authorities, no matter how much they may promise it's not going to happen. Australia, Canada and GB prove that, and we've had several instances in the US as well, specifically New Jersey and California. Nope. Wrong. Guns, specifically banned "assault weapons" were confiscated both in California and in New Jersey. You just spew one idiotic gunner myth after another. Facts are inconvenient for you, aren't they? ... What I might do when the government attempts to *confiscate* my firearms is a different matter entirely. You'd **** your pants. No, that's something unarmed cowards like you do when faced with an armed assailant. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Nisarel wrote: Wilko wrote: It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years, He's not very good. Nope, he isn't, but he does seem to catch unaware newbies to this group every once in a while... :-( That must make you an "unaware newbie" Wilko. -- 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 |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! TnT So, work your magic! All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon, despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a scumbag. I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! Unless I am having fun with it Tinkerntom, and not actually on the verge of a nervous breakdown because some twit has a hard on against Canada :-) I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less of you for your mis-speaks. You just mis-spoke yourself. If I mis-spoke, I quickly apologize. And if you would kindly point out where I specifically mis-spoke, I will apologize again! In the current disagreement, rick is alleging that I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. That is 100% false. I never said that. In the previous disagreement, I tried to pin rick down on his ramblings against Canadian health care and did not word me question to him very carefully. I would not call that a "mis-speak" either, it was just a carelessly worded question, and I apologized as promised. Hey we have all done it, and you acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome. Geez, I feel like I was on the verge of going to the gas chamber and Tinkerntom has just pulled me back from the brink. Whatever it takes! However, I would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in regards to this. Well, you can speak for me as well. Don't worry, it's almost over. However I see no one else choosing to get between you two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT I am never alone in the sandbox. My sandbox is extremely full. Perhaps that's why arguing with a simpleton scumbag like rick is a nice mental break, believe it or not. Ok, see you later. TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does, I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. Really? How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as himself? Any cites which describe the "true manifestation" of God? Wouldn't a biblical constraint on how God may manifest himself as "himself" be rather limiting to, well, God? Why would God so restrict himself? He wouldn't. You are merely trying to impose an artificial limitation on the "legitimate" manifestations of God as "himself" in order to tautologically support your unsupportable argument. All manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc. Well, since God is omnipotent and omnipresent (according to dogma), it would seem to me that God can "be" anything he wants. In fact, he can (and indeed is by many definitions) be EVERYTHING at once if he wants. He is, after all, without limitation by definition. Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man, or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself. You don't get it, you never will. No, quite clearly, you don't get it. It is possible, however, that you someday will. -- 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 |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a complete and utter asshole he is :-) So are you ready to completely move on and forget even taking a parting shot? TnT Tsk. There's that controlling religious attitude again... No control, just a suggestion! TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: For example, I know for a fact that you may not "consent" to being killed, even in the privacy of your own home. Thus, you are full of ****. Poor snotty - did I make you cranky? The context of the discussion is sexual behavior. Deal with that. I know, that means not lying, but at least you can try. Hey, dip****, you were the one who started with the personal invective. In any sort of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the greater needs of the society in which he lives. If all decisions are the responsibility of the greater society, that pretty much eliminates all your claims about freedom. Try parsing the sentence again. Look specifically for the word "circumscribed." Now go look up the definition and see if it means "all." Then get back to me. If an individual cannot conduct his most private life according to his or her own rules, then they have no freedom. We're talking about sexual behavior here - between consenting adults - in case you plan on bringing up some ridiculous analogy. Good thing you qualified your overbroad generalization. So, let's analyze this a little bit. Here's a sceneario for you to discuss: Two individuals engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their home. Unfortunately, one of the partners (A) is infected with a sexually transmitted disease, perhaps a deadly or debilitating one such as AIDS or Syphilis. This partner knows full well of the infection, and fails to inform the partner (B) of the health hazard, and takes no action to prevent the spread of the infection. Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according to his or her own rules?" The state cannot take away a right that doesn't exist. What are the rights that exist? What holy stone are they cast into? Good question. Generally speaking, "rights" are what the society agrees each member has. Abstractly, one can claim just about anything as a "right," but whether society decides to recognize and protect it as a "right" is another thing entirely. What makes you the arbiter of what constitutes a right? Nothing. I've not claimed that I arbitrate rights. I've not even said that I disagree with your belief that interference with private consensual sexual conduct ought to be beyond the purview of the law. What I have done is to analyze your statements and respond to them in an academic inquiry into the strength or weakness of your thesis. However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights." Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely bogus. Sez you. No, you make the bogus claims - Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus. Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers? Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus. Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time. Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus. Factually speaking it is. morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts. Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a morphological difference. Don't blame me if you used the wrong word. H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus. Not a claim I ever made. Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus. You've yet to post anything which refutes it. Want more? If you expect to win your case, you're going to need a LOT more. Knock yourself out. You throw out any claim, hoping that those who read it will be at least as stupid as you are and believe it. However, those of us that are smarter than you will always take you to task for your bull****. Uh huh. Whatever. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the statements into something they are not. Don't blame me if you are imprecise in your erudition. I say one cannot prove either that God exists or does not exist. You are wrong...maybe. You say that means that I say God does not exist. Hardly a case of me not writing clearly enough. Not a claim I made. I say fundies are fools for wasting their time with ridiculous "theories" of creationism. And yet you cannot disprove their theories. Your statements are deliberately insulting because you know that your argument is weak. You say that I say anyone that believes in God is a fool. Again - not my writing that's the problem - it's your twisted mind at work. It's implicit in your statements. Feel free to clearly state your beliefs if you disagree. There are your deliberate misquotes. Such as? See above. You are a liar and behave in an extremely dishonest manner. High praise from someone of your ilk. Yet you try to present yourself as some holier-than-thou master logician. Bull****. When logic and reason fails you, invective and evasion is your course. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: If I wasn't any good, nobody would reply. We don't reply because you're good - we reply to reduce the level of bull**** in the newsgroup. Every time you post, misinformation is spread. Only because you respond to my cogent and insightful comments. -- 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 |
rick wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. ============== Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he owed. TnT rick I will venture one more time into this morass. I am not sure exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing to work with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am posting using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the relevant posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's apology is #1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though that number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply. I don't know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same way, or even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you are unable to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go to the web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed KMAN did post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I have also seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure, it could be different time zones. I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his post, I have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand out. I realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this post. However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret that KMAN did not issue you an apology as I suggested, totally separate from all this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the first situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had infact provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed. On 3-01-05 KMAN posted the following in response to other included postings. KMAN Mar 1, 8:24 pm KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 3/1/05 10:56 PM: KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snipsss... My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom. Can I please try again? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? If you will excuse and accept the following babble? I deleted it. Has he proven it? A Yes, he provided evidence, and there was other evidence available! How has he PROVEN it. Anyone can "provide evidence" that is not the same as proving something, Tinkerntom. For example, your participation here in this newsgroup is something I would provide as evidence that you are suffering from mental health problems. But as I am sure you will agree, it doesn't prove it. For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while waiting for health care, and if the health care system had not responded so slowly, she'd still be alive?" Yes, read about Diane Gorsuch below! That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and died doesn't mean that caused the death. He never claimed that! If so show me Date and Time of rick's post! I am to tired to search any longer myself, having read and reread probably 100 less than inspiring epistles by you two. Sigh. Well what would be the point of claiming that someone died while they were on a waiting list but the fact that they were waiting was not related to the cause of death!?!?!!?? Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for health care? Yes, ask and answered previously and below! How has he proven it? Can you point me to an objective report (such as a coroner's report or inquiry) that says "Person X died because they were on a waiting list and their death was preventable if they had not been on that waiting list" Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the waiting that caused them to die. Now you are changing the question, rick never claimed this. He claimed that people died while their name was on a waiting list, waiting for a test or procedure that could have saved their life. That's fine. Point me to any objective report that says someone died because they were waiting for treatment that woudl have saved their life. They still might have lost their life, even if they had the procedure, because these were seriously ill individuals with life threatening illness, usually cardiac or ontology, but that is a different issue entirely! No, it isn't. Before your deleted it, did you read it? Your promise was posted as follows; Feb 22, 7:03 am "Please provide a link to the message in which you posted a Canadian reference (or any reference) that proves Canadians have died in wait lines for health care, and I will make a formal and public apology." Sigh. I am not a scumbag like rick. I make a formal and public apology. The question, although badly worded, was worded by yours truly, and, as worded,the requested burden has been met. Sadly, the intended purpose of asking such a question - to combat bizarre mythology being propogated about Canadian health care and to try to bring some focus to wild unsubstiated generalizations - has been even more widly derailed by rick's deceptive tactics that have focused mainly on ad hominem attacks and unreferenced accusations. The Canadian health care system is excellent, and what some of the articles you quoted show is that the provincial and federal governments (and more importantly the general populace) see it as a top priority and are determined to keep standards high. Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment and testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he meant to say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically correct. You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from reading the passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which he has now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for making the declarative statement, and that it was infact technically incorrect. Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your political position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues at the same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his claim that you had not provided any evidence. I went out of my way to research the first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking and screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did apologize to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support your claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and apologised as stated above. Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily need to apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the difficulty. Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the misstatement of fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange, however, in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge that he has modified his previous declarative statement. I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of your intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt regarding the second issue, if you continue as you have been doing. I would suggest, to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to allow him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid further acrimony and recriminations. If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this part of the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is only a suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult, with much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose to do so. Your choice! I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be desired, with his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks about me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once! Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved, and as his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can make me set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the inside!" Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We will see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature conversation! TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============ Though if you had ask your real question in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly, without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff. ============ Sorry, Tink, my question WAS clear to begin with and there was nothing you had to plow through. But it appears you either still don't get it, or you don't want to get it, or you're jerking me about, or you're not interested in pursuing the discussion. At this point, if we were in court, you'd be designated a hostile witness. Look: I'll try to be as simplistic about this as I can. Let's pretend that you and I are going to write a book called "JC Goes To Washington". It's about a young politician who runs as an independent and gets elected to the House of Representatives. Now, Tink, here's the hook in our book: every chapter will be about a different public policy issue. Of course there'll be a whole interesting assortment of characters -- trade unionists, industrialists, NRA lobbyists, a host of politicians button-holing our hero in the corridors of power etc. JC, our hero will listen to all sides of the issues (remember, one issue per chapter). Then, at the end of each chapter, he'll have to decide which way to vote. Of course he'll vote based on HIS teachings (a "higher law"). So, at the end of each chapter we'll know where JC stands on these issues. Is that so hard to magine Tink? Are you game? frtzw906 Game on! First though, I regret that I was not able to get back to you sooner, but felt I should try to address some of the other pressing issues, and hope they can work things out. In addition, my truck blew a steering hydraulic line today as if our recent discussion about breaking down brought a subject lesson to light. Luckily I was not going down the highway at the time, and was able to find a nice sunny flat parking lot to work under the van. Seems that the Lord had figured my daily schedule different than I had. One of those surprises I mentioned before. As to your question being clear, it may have been to you, and I suspected what you were wanting to get to. I did not mean to be evasive, but I did desire for a clear statement so that there would be no future misunderstanding. I did not mean to jerk you around, or indicate that I am not interested or willing to delve into these issues, as difficult and sensitive as they may be. So I apologize for any misunderstanding now and in the future if I take a step in my logic that is not clear. Feel free to stop me if I am not clear, and sometimes simple is good. JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed. Does this work for you? If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT |
TnT says:
======== JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed. Does this work for you? If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT =========== In essence, we've strarted the first chapter. I asked about JC's position on capital punishment. What I'm curious about, heathen that I am, can we find anything in the bible which shows JC to have been for or against capital punishment. My impression is that advocating for capital punishment would inconsistent with everything (very little, I admit) I've ever read about JC. So, you're the Christian, you tell me. frtzw906 |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... rick wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... snip... change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. ============== Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he owed. TnT rick I will venture one more time into this morass. ================== thanks.. I am not sure exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing to work with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am posting using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the relevant posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's apology is #1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though that number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply. ========================== It's the right number, however the reply he made was not to me. It was a reply to you, and does not say he is apologizing to me. It looks more like he is apologizing for bad wording. But as it is, since it was never in a post to me, and it was buried down in a post to you, I did not see it. I don't know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same way, or even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you are unable to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go to the web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed KMAN did post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I have also seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure, it could be different time zones. I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his post, I have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand out. I realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this post. However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret that KMAN did not issue you an apology as I suggested, ================= And to me, as he promised in several posts... totally separate from all this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the first situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had infact provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed. ================== He has to you, I found it in no poats he made to me. And others here continue to claim the information is false. snip restored post, as I found it on google... Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment and testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he meant to say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically correct. ================== And I have admitted that he has changed he statement. You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from reading the passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which he has now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for making the declarative statement, and that it was infact technically incorrect. ================= Yes, I have said I admitted he now says the statement was wrong. He, however continues to state that he never said it, period. Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your political position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues at the same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his claim that you had not provided any evidence. ================== I rather enjoyed that part. Calling on you for fairness and impartiality, and then in the next post slamming your positions. I went out of my way to research the first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking and screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did apologize to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support your claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and apologised as stated above. ====================== Well, I'm not sure that the apology was to me, or about accepting the claims, as it really appeared he was just apologizing for his wording. But, if you think it was an apology, and an apology about accepting the data provided, I'll accept that. Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily need to apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the difficulty. Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the misstatement of fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange, however, in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge that he has modified his previous declarative statement. ======================== That I already have. I have already "complimented" him on changing his tune. LOL I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of your intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt regarding the second issue, if you continue as you have been doing. ==================== No no, I have admitted that he has changed his mind on what he said. My only point is that he continues to say he did not make the statement at all. I would suggest, to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to allow him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid further acrimony and recriminations. If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this part of the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is only a suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult, with much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose to do so. Your choice! ===================== I've been willing since the beginning. I porvided only info for refuting his first claims, and got nothing but grief in return. Nothing to refute what I posted, no informed Canadian sources that would state that what I had found was in error. Instead, just vitriol and the continued jingoistic chest-thumping that they are so eager to claim americans are too guilty of all the time. He could not get past his hate, and look at the issue objectivly. I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be desired, with his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks about me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once! Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved, and as his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can make me set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the inside!" Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We will see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature conversation! TnT ================== Thanks. I tried that at the beginning. It didn't get anywhere with him, as he would never address the issues I brought up, including more than just the dying in waitlines, and I admit it went downhill from there. But when only one side is presenting any data, and the other just keeps saying nah nah nah, you're wrong, without backing it up, it's easy to go downhill. |
rick wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... rick wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... snip... change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. ============== Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he owed. TnT rick I will venture one more time into this morass. ================== thanks.. I am not sure exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing to work with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am posting using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the relevant posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's apology is #1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though that number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply. ========================== It's the right number, however the reply he made was not to me. It was a reply to you, and does not say he is apologizing to me. It looks more like he is apologizing for bad wording. But as it is, since it was never in a post to me, and it was buried down in a post to you, I did not see it. I don't know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same way, or even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you are unable to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go to the web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed KMAN did post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I have also seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure, it could be different time zones. I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his post, I have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand out. I realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this post. However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret that KMAN did not issue you an apology as I suggested, ================= And to me, as he promised in several posts... totally separate from all this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the first situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had infact provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed. ================== He has to you, I found it in no poats he made to me. And others here continue to claim the information is false. snip restored post, as I found it on google... Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment and testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he meant to say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically correct. ================== And I have admitted that he has changed he statement. You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from reading the passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which he has now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for making the declarative statement, and that it was infact technically incorrect. ================= Yes, I have said I admitted he now says the statement was wrong. He, however continues to state that he never said it, period. Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your political position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues at the same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his claim that you had not provided any evidence. ================== I rather enjoyed that part. Calling on you for fairness and impartiality, and then in the next post slamming your positions. I went out of my way to research the first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking and screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did apologize to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support your claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and apologised as stated above. ====================== Well, I'm not sure that the apology was to me, or about accepting the claims, as it really appeared he was just apologizing for his wording. But, if you think it was an apology, and an apology about accepting the data provided, I'll accept that. Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily need to apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the difficulty. Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the misstatement of fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange, however, in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge that he has modified his previous declarative statement. ======================== That I already have. I have already "complimented" him on changing his tune. LOL I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of your intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt regarding the second issue, if you continue as you have been doing. ==================== No no, I have admitted that he has changed his mind on what he said. My only point is that he continues to say he did not make the statement at all. I would suggest, to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to allow him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid further acrimony and recriminations. If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this part of the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is only a suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult, with much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose to do so. Your choice! ===================== I've been willing since the beginning. I porvided only info for refuting his first claims, and got nothing but grief in return. Nothing to refute what I posted, no informed Canadian sources that would state that what I had found was in error. Instead, just vitriol and the continued jingoistic chest-thumping that they are so eager to claim americans are too guilty of all the time. He could not get past his hate, and look at the issue objectivly. I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be desired, with his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks about me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once! Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved, and as his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can make me set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the inside!" Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We will see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature conversation! TnT ================== Thanks. I tried that at the beginning. It didn't get anywhere with him, as he would never address the issues I brought up, including more than just the dying in waitlines, and I admit it went downhill from there. But when only one side is presenting any data, and the other just keeps saying nah nah nah, you're wrong, without backing it up, it's easy to go downhill. Thanks rick for the concise, to the point, and resonable response. We will see how KMAN responds. KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you address rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once, though obtusely, the second restatement should be easier, if the first was sincere! And then shake hands, TnT |
Tink says:
=============== KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you address rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once ================ Nice try Tink, but if you're thinking of a career as a mediator, I'd say "Don't quit your day job." Mediation does not include pointing at any side and saying "Now admit you lost!" Tink, Tink, Tink.... it just doesn't work that way. Does the expression "Bull in a chinashop" mean anything at all? LOL frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Tink says: =============== KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you address rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once ================ Nice try Tink, but if you're thinking of a career as a mediator, I'd say "Don't quit your day job." Mediation does not include pointing at any side and saying "Now admit you lost!" Tink, Tink, Tink.... it just doesn't work that way. Does the expression "Bull in a chinashop" mean anything at all? LOL ======================= Problem for you is that your analysis is false. TnT didn't just jump in and try to mediate, he was shanghaied by liarman and put in the position to make a call, one way or another. If you had been keeping an open mind, and reading for comprhension, you would have seen posts where TnT was also on my case about my posts... frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT says: ======== JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed. Does this work for you? If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT =========== In essence, we've strarted the first chapter. I asked about JC's position on capital punishment. What I'm curious about, heathen that I am, can we find anything in the bible which shows JC to have been for or against capital punishment. My impression is that advocating for capital punishment would inconsistent with everything (very little, I admit) I've ever read about JC. So, you're the Christian, you tell me. frtzw906 This being JC's first day in Washington, and having not even got His office established, He is immediately faced with the difficult issue of capital punishment, and whether it should be allowed or not, for civil authorities to condemn men to death, and execute them. JC being a part of the inner circle of the Godhood, and being privvy to the inner workings, and being present and actively involved at the time of the Creation, Loves His Creation with an Infinite Love. It greviously distresses Him to see men killing men. Whether on the battlefield, or the back alley, or the abortion table, or the death row cell. That we can justify spending billions to build a new nuclear submarine that can pack more destructive energy inside its own hull than was dropped in the entirety of the second world war, and yet cannot see our way clear to build more and bigger wharehouses to store individuals who have proved their inability to live peaceably with their neighbor, seems contraditory! JC hates killing, and in particular the kind that is called murder. As a state legislator He even wrote laws to that effect, "Thou shalt not murder!". Now as a congressmen in Washington, everyone is watching to see what he will advocate, and do, to solve the perplexing issues that Washington faces. His general position is well known, and referred to as the "higher laws," though that is a bit nebulous, it has a nice ring to it. All politicians, being politicians, love to appear to take the high road, and to not be accused of taking the low road through life. Ironically, most all politicians have taken the low road to get to Washington! JC being the only unigue example in recorded history to have, in fact, done so by actually taking the High road. Most politicians also recognize the advantage of being able to say that JC is on their side, and supports their cause. Because of His sterling reputation, many various lobbist and special interest groups are putting a lot of pressure on Him to make a decision regarding capital punishment that would support their cause. Those who are interested in building bigger boats want the limited money spent on their pet projects, instead of building bigger wharehouses. This gives them ample opportunity to pocket a little on the side. Sometimes they shadow their interest with the diversion, that these individual that are beyond reformation, should just be eliminated, and so save a bunch of the taxpayers money. Ironically all of the various lobbist, have their special interest, and it eventually always comes down to money, and where it should be spent, and where it should be cut. But all the money will be spent, and the taxpayers will not save any money after all. Very few are actually interested in penal reform, or concern for the inmate on death row. Many of those who are infavor of building bigger and better wharehouses, are not so much interested trully in the inmate, as in maintaining their own cushy job of spending a lot of money on their own pet projects, whereby a certain amount finds itself into their pockets as well. However it does make them feel better to say they care! JC having created every living soul, and knowing their very heart, knows that each of these individuals that are being held on death row are not beyond reformation, and knowing that the very lobbist and politicians that are protesting and advocating certain actions, some for and some against, have all kinds of ulterior motives. Their hearts are no better than the heart of these murders. The politicians, possibly even having committed murder to get to the very hallowed halls from which they now jostle each other! The only difference being they did not get caught! Like a bunch of wild animals, willing to devour each other, if someone only gets in their way. However even the animals don't kill without cause, usually because they are hungry, and none of these fatcat politicians look very hungry! JC sat down near the end of the day, knowing that He had to make a decision, and contemplating what he should do. In light of the sorry state of the legal system, which is another issue for another chapter, it currently takes twenty years for a deathrow inmate to exhaust all of his appeals, JC came up with the following law. "For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years, those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during the 20 years, and having made the effort to get to know the inmate intimately, will be given the opportunity to present their case to the rest of those who have as well met the above criteria. Then they will all vote as to whether the inmate, having lost his appeals, will be put to death if the simple majority of those who care enough to have met the above criteria, decide that this would be best for society at large, and the call for justice in general. Be it understood, that JC, though He is very busy with His hectic schedule in Washington, being God, plans to meet with each inmate on death row, each day of their 20 year internment, and will not only act as their attorney through out the appeal process, but at the required meeting after 20 years of all other trully concerned parties, in which He will act as an advocate for grace and forgiveness, toward the inmate. Since He knows the inmate intimately and has been working in the inmates heart to change the thoughts and intents of the inmates heart, the inmate knows that he has the opportunity to change the direction of his life, and often infact there is evidence of a miraculous change in the inmate that is obvious to all. Be it also understood that JC will be working everyday for those 20 years, in the hearts of all the truly concerned parties, who in most cases are not much different than the inmate. To change their hearts and minds, and to fill them with compassion and understanding toward all their fellow men, and specifically, forgiveness toward the death row inmate who offended them so grieviously. IF after all this, the vote is to put the inmate to death, the authorities are ordered to exercise the civil law, and order the capital punishment of the inmate! This expression of the Higher Law should be put into effect immediately, and all men subject to its enforcement. " JC having had a busy day of interacting with all the various politician and lobbist, and having totally exhausted his staff, encouraged us all to go home and rest, because we have a busy day tomorrow. However for Himself, being full of energy, and with His great compassion, set it upon Himself to go out and check on the wellfare of all the current inmates in all the jails in all the world, as well as all the current concerned parties, and unconcerned parties, and all other individuals in the whole world as well. He having made this His practice since the beginning of time anyway, does not find the enforcement of the Higher law puts any overwhelming strain or burden on His regimen. Actually He is glad to get more people actively involved in this work of reforming mens hearts, and truly concerned about those who have been lost in the hopelessness of prison. JC is now looking forward to His next day in Washington, knowing that good and God will prevail! This report is filed by TnT 3/5/05 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: =============== KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you address rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once ================ Nice try Tink, but if you're thinking of a career as a mediator, I'd say "Don't quit your day job." Mediation does not include pointing at any side and saying "Now admit you lost!" Tink, Tink, Tink.... it just doesn't work that way. Does the expression "Bull in a chinashop" mean anything at all? LOL frtzw906 Well I definitly don't plan on quitting my day job, and you are more than welcome to the mediating one. Now it will be my turn to laugh! :) TnT |
Tink on behalf of JC opines:
============ For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years, those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during the 20 years,... ================== Hey, Tink, that's an interesting twist. I'm not sure it's quite in the spirit of my proposition to you (I was hoping to keep the answers a bit more "clinical": you cite the scripture that you hope to use to make JC's case for him.). Nonetheless, as I said, a twist. I've always maintained that, if a society is going to permit capital punishment, then the "hangman" ought to be chosen, at random, from the citizenry. My point, if you really think you, chosen at random from the citizenry, could look the convict in the eyes, while pulling the switch at an electrocution, then you'd vote for capital punishment. Those who could not, themselves, do the job, would vote against capital punishment. But, that's another issue. But back to our "story" Tink: let's keep it simple by not assuming lengthy appeals. What then? Where's the scripture we need to make this decision? frtzw906 |
|
|
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:29 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic process. So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based on race. Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy. Totally applicable. While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for defending their very lives. ? If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that parallel? If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be discrimination. Why is it different for gay people? Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes of those who make the laws. How does gay marriage increase the spread of AIDS? My gawd you can be an idiot. Yes, let's reduce the spread of AIDS by ensuring that gay people continue to be marginalized and their relationships considered second class. That will help promote safe sex for sure! As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot help or control. Or, you are one of these freaks who thinks people "choose" to be gay. Yeah, that's an attractive option, being gay in America. I'm sure every homosexual in America woke up one day and said "Yeah, that's a good idea, I think I'll choose my sexuality based on my best chance of being discriminated against as a matter of routine, and possible getting my skull bashed by some neurotic redneck who blames gay people for turning the girl he liked into a lesbian." LOL. Yes, I'm sure being gay is a choice big big sneer. Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes. ROFL. Well, I don't hear you promoting lesbian marriage!!! Anti-sodomy laws are based in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated" against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children. Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that is within the purview of the law. Only two gay people are consenting adults, thus making your analogy to a pedophile insultingly ridiculous and irrelevant. I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not. You do realize that, right? So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable. No, it isn't in the least. Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to control. There is no relevant comparison between pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality. This is totally illogical. On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape. On the other hand, if you argue that two consenting adults, whether of the same sex or opposite sex, should have the right to get married, this has nothing to do with authorizing child sex and rape, and renders the entire hypothesis the ridiculous piece of crap that it is. Then again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior. What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize as legitimately within the sphere of state control? The state can't to a thing to limit consensual sexual behaviour. I don't think law enforcement has the resources to go busting into the nation's bedrooms and doing sniff tests to see who has been porking whom. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM: snip same old crap that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================================ Yes, you did Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for treatment." ===================== It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted your lie has already beem determined. Now, how about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman? Go ahead, cowardly scum. ================ LOL This from the liarman afraid to review the facts enough to try to provide any refutation. Otherwise, admit you are a lying scum and apologize! =========================== Nope, no need. However, you have yet to keep your word about an apology. But then, we know what your word is worth, eh liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM: snip... I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, ======================== LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an apology. That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and showing what a coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate false accusations. ====================== No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me, liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.' You are the dishonest one here, liarman... |
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:22 PM: snip liarmans same old crap as I have explained to you, mu opionion is that the doctor in the article does not know what the boys problem is, and needs the test to determine his course of treatment. That you continue to be so jingoistic in defence of the indefencable is what is truly amazingly willful ignorance. Whatever you take from that article, I never said that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ============== Yes, you did. That you have now admitted your ignorance is fine, and we can move on to the rest of your lies, eh liarman? You are a liar, a scumbag, and a coward for refusing to admit that your accusation is false and apologize. ==================== Nope. I have posted nothing but the facts, liarman. You, on the other hand, have posted nothing but your willfully ignorant spew. |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/4/05 11:01 PM: KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ========= Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us! ========= i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his blanket.... and then walk away.... frtzw906 That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest. Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a complete and utter asshole he is :-) So are you ready to completely move on and forget even taking a parting shot? TnT Tsk. There's that controlling religious attitude again... No control, just a suggestion! TnT Mmm, sounded more like the language of control...but thanks for the suggestion ;-) |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/5/05 12:42 PM: rick wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... rick wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... snip... change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. ============== Esopecially since I have nothing to apologize to him about. he has yet to offer his apology though, the one even you said he owed. TnT rick I will venture one more time into this morass. ================== thanks.. I am not sure exactly the source of all the confusion. So if you are willing to work with me, I will try to be clear, fair, and understanding. I am posting using Google as a web access to the RBP archive, and all the relevant posts are numbered. The particular post including KMAN's apology is #1208 when listed in order of date. And currently #478, though that number is subject to change, when listed in order of reply. ========================== It's the right number, however the reply he made was not to me. It was a reply to you, and does not say he is apologizing to me. It looks more like he is apologizing for bad wording. But as it is, since it was never in a post to me, and it was buried down in a post to you, I did not see it. I don't know if your news server keeps track of this info in the same way, or even archives the discussion at all. For that reason, if you are unable to find this post on your server, I would suggest that you go to the web accessed, Google archive of RBP, and affirm that indeed KMAN did post the following post. In the date an time of the post, I have also seen discrepancies develope, the source of which I am unsure, it could be different time zones. I have copied below a post by KMAN on 3/1/05 at 8:24 PM. In his post, I have removed the delimiters so that Kman's apology should stand out. I realize that there is alot of other stuff included in this post. However, THERE IS AN APOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!! I regret that KMAN did not issue you an apology as I suggested, ================= And to me, as he promised in several posts... totally separate from all this overburden, and during the daytime, when it would have the greatest impact. However, he did issue you an apology for the first situation regarding the posting of evidence which you had infact provided, and he now acknowledged you provided as you claimed. ================== He has to you, I found it in no poats he made to me. And others here continue to claim the information is false. snip restored post, as I found it on google... Kman has as well retracted his statements regarding treatment and testing in New Foundland, and has attemted to clarify what he meant to say. He has acknowledged that what he said was not technically correct. ================== And I have admitted that he has changed he statement. You say it was a declarative statement, and I agree, from reading the passage, that what he wrote was a declarative statemnt. Which he has now retracted and acknowledged that he had no grounds for making the declarative statement, and that it was infact technically incorrect. ================= Yes, I have said I admitted he now says the statement was wrong. He, however continues to state that he never said it, period. Now I think you know that I am largely in agreement with your political position, and I find KMAN willing to dump on me about my issues at the same time that he is asking for my testimony supporting his claim that you had not provided any evidence. ================== I rather enjoyed that part. Calling on you for fairness and impartiality, and then in the next post slamming your positions. I went out of my way to research the first issue, and extract an apology from him albeit, kicking and screaming. His duplicity is curious at best! However, he did apologize to you for saying that you had not provided evidence to support your claim, which he now acknowledges his claim as false, and apologised as stated above. ====================== Well, I'm not sure that the apology was to me, or about accepting the claims, as it really appeared he was just apologizing for his wording. But, if you think it was an apology, and an apology about accepting the data provided, I'll accept that. Regarding the second issue, I do not believe you necessarily need to apologize, since it was his misspeak again that led to the difficulty. Normally if people were together, a hand shake would be very apporopriate to ameliate the hard feelings over the misstatement of fact on his part, which led to the current state of exchange, however, in lieu of a handshake, I would suggest that you acknowledge that he has modified his previous declarative statement. ======================== That I already have. I have already "complimented" him on changing his tune. LOL I do believe that you will owe him apology for the issue of your intransience in not allowing him to modify his statemnt regarding the second issue, if you continue as you have been doing. ==================== No no, I have admitted that he has changed his mind on what he said. My only point is that he continues to say he did not make the statement at all. I would suggest, to avoid this claim on his part regarding your unwillingness to allow him to change what he said, to what he meant to say, that you acknowledge that he has modified his position, and hence avoid further acrimony and recriminations. If you could do this it would go a long way to returning this part of the discussion to a meaningfull and mature discussion. This is only a suggestion though, since I believe that you are a mature adult, with much to offer a constructive mature conversation, if you choose to do so. Your choice! ===================== I've been willing since the beginning. I porvided only info for refuting his first claims, and got nothing but grief in return. Nothing to refute what I posted, no informed Canadian sources that would state that what I had found was in error. Instead, just vitriol and the continued jingoistic chest-thumping that they are so eager to claim americans are too guilty of all the time. He could not get past his hate, and look at the issue objectivly. I acknowledge that the apology by KMAN leaves a lot to be desired, with his continuing protest, and his subsequent disparaging remarks about me. It reminds me of a Dennis the Menace cartoon I saw once! Dennis is setting in the corner, obviously having misbehaved, and as his mom is leaving the room, you hear Dennis saying, "You can make me set down on the outside. But I am still standing up on the inside!" Well I suspect that KMAN is still standing up on the inside. We will see if either of you can shake hands and carry on a mature conversation! TnT ================== Thanks. I tried that at the beginning. It didn't get anywhere with him, as he would never address the issues I brought up, including more than just the dying in waitlines, and I admit it went downhill from there. But when only one side is presenting any data, and the other just keeps saying nah nah nah, you're wrong, without backing it up, it's easy to go downhill. Thanks rick for the concise, to the point, and resonable response. We will see how KMAN responds. KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests What the hell are you smoking? Reasonable? He's been reiterating a false accusation against me for several days now. He's a massive scumbag and the king of the assholes too boot. He can go suck eggs. |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:33 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM: snip same old crap that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe me an apology. ================== No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman. Where's yours? Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================================ Yes, you did Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for treatment." ===================== It has been fool, many times now. It hasn't been posted once, because it doesn't exist. You are a liar and a scumbag for continuing to insist otherwise. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:30 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message snip... I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! Unless I am having fun with it Tinkerntom, and not actually on the verge of a nervous breakdown because some twit has a hard on against Canada :-) ===================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! Where have I ever said that fool? I really don't know what your problem is, that much is true. ========================== Actually, you've proven you know very little about anything at all, liarman... I'd bet I spend far more time in Canada than you do in the states. It's you that has proven you hate of anything US, and your unnatural devotion to anything Canadian despite its cost in Candaian lives. I was born in Evanston, Illinois. If not for the large number of "more guns, more jesus" crowd, I might like to live in the US again. I love NYC and think it is one of the greatest places on earth. I fully understand the trade-offs in Canadian health care. Like a lot of Canadians I'm advocating for even more resources for our health care system, and it is happening, although more slowly than I would like. But I much prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or minorities get inferior treatment to rich and/or white people. =========================== Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in Canada that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either. I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less of you for your mis-speaks. You just mis-spoke yourself. In the current disagreement, rick is alleging that I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. That is 100% false. I never said that. ====================== Yes, you did, and I have shown you where. No, you haven't. You showed me where I disagreed with you about whether or not the people in Newfoundland were waiting 2.5 years for treatment. I never said that no Canadians wait for treatment. If I had said that, obviously you would have posted my quote to that effect, but you can't, because I never said it, and you know it. You are a liar and a scumbag. ================== No, that's you, liarman. In the previous disagreement, I tried to pin rick down on his ramblings against Canadian health care and did not word me question to him very carefully. I would not call that a "mis-speak" either, it was just a carelessly worded question, and I apologized as promised. ===================== No you did not, not in any post I saw That's because you are too busy being a scumbag and showing the world what an asshole you are - 100 times over! LOL. ============================= No, because you are too dishonest to come out and give one. You buried it in a response to someone esle, and you really only apologized for your ignorant wording, liarman. Talk about a dishonest 'scumbag,' you've got that title down pat, liarman. |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM: snip... I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, ======================== LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an apology. That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and showing what a coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate false accusations. ====================== No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me, liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.' You are the dishonest one here, liarman... Sorry you didn't care for the apology. As you well know, the point of my trying to pin you down on details about Canadian health care was to knock you off your childish unfounded rants. Tinkerntom helped me realize that the way I worded my demand you could make reference to people who died while waiting for a test and whether or not the actual waiting killed them or not, you would meet the burden of proof as worded in the demand. Therefore, I apologized. I'm not a liar and a coward like you are. You are insisting I said that no one in Canada ever waits for treatment and you know I never said that. That makes you a liar, a scumbag, and a coward. |
in article , rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/4/05 10:30 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "Tinkerntom" wrote in message snip... I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified, and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative" statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners! So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud! Unless I am having fun with it Tinkerntom, and not actually on the verge of a nervous breakdown because some twit has a hard on against Canada :-) ===================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! Where have I ever said that fool? I really don't know what your problem is, that much is true. ========================== Actually, you've proven you know very little about anything at all, liarman... I'd bet I spend far more time in Canada than you do in the states. It's you that has proven you hate of anything US, and your unnatural devotion to anything Canadian despite its cost in Candaian lives. I was born in Evanston, Illinois. If not for the large number of "more guns, more jesus" crowd, I might like to live in the US again. I love NYC and think it is one of the greatest places on earth. I fully understand the trade-offs in Canadian health care. Like a lot of Canadians I'm advocating for even more resources for our health care system, and it is happening, although more slowly than I would like. But I much prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or minorities get inferior treatment to rich and/or white people. =========================== Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in Canada that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either. Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of asking the KKK for information on immigration policies. But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the system is eroding, and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of will to turn that around, and I think that will be the direction of things. The vast majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where something as basic as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged. snip tired old crap FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is interesting to discuss. |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink on behalf of JC opines: ============ For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years, those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during the 20 years,... ================== Hey, Tink, that's an interesting twist. I'm not sure it's quite in the spirit of my proposition to you (I was hoping to keep the answers a bit more "clinical": you cite the scripture that you hope to use to make JC's case for him.). Nonetheless, as I said, a twist. I've always maintained that, if a society is going to permit capital punishment, then the "hangman" ought to be chosen, at random, from the citizenry. My point, if you really think you, chosen at random from the citizenry, could look the convict in the eyes, while pulling the switch at an electrocution, then you'd vote for capital punishment. Those who could not, themselves, do the job, would vote against capital punishment. But, that's another issue. But back to our "story" Tink: let's keep it simple by not assuming lengthy appeals. What then? Where's the scripture we need to make this decision? frtzw906 I would suggest that you ask specific questions as in a news briefing, and I will respond with specific scriptures. That will help me stay on topic, and I will not send you a boat load of scriptures that do not address the specific question you are interested in. As you know, I have a very large boat! :) TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink on behalf of JC opines: ============ For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years, those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during the 20 years,... ================== Hey, Tink, that's an interesting twist. I'm not sure it's quite in the spirit of my proposition to you (I was hoping to keep the answers a bit more "clinical": you cite the scripture that you hope to use to make JC's case for him.). Nonetheless, as I said, a twist. I've always maintained that, if a society is going to permit capital punishment, then the "hangman" ought to be chosen, at random, from the citizenry. My point, if you really think you, chosen at random from the citizenry, could look the convict in the eyes, while pulling the switch at an electrocution, then you'd vote for capital punishment. Those who could not, themselves, do the job, would vote against capital punishment. But, that's another issue. But back to our "story" Tink: let's keep it simple by not assuming lengthy appeals. What then? Where's the scripture we need to make this decision? frtzw906 Frtwz, I just sent you a response to this post by you requesting specific question, and then rereading your post, and see that you ask such a question. Oops! I am also having server problems and so not sure this will post when I get done, but will try. If you get this then I guess the server started working again. :) Your question, would JC endorse capital punishment today? I have included a few scriptures following: Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. God instituted the death penalty originally, in reference to Creation. Murder is an affront to God, who created us in His image. If some one kills a man, it is as if he is trying to kill God! God says that man should die! Rom 13:1-2 Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. Rom 13:3-4 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. In the current era, God affirmed the continuing authority of civil government, and that we need to be subject to that authority, which included punishment for evil deeds, some of that punisnment accomplished with the sword, implying death. Same theme in following verses. 1 Pet 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. So, yes I believe that Jesus would endorse the death penalty today as He has through out the ages. TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com