in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement, and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense, and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past, opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from "revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment. Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill, not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions? Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions? Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom. What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for? Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over 80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American. (David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department, released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities. The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the defendant
was African-American.

"Šracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every stage of
the processŠ. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May 1999

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/7/05 12:35 AM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy
us
all?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear
from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words
ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with
the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the
religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed
the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would
primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you
would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so
dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again.
I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you
as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play
the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will
see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I
understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand
the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction
and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real
world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the
Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder
would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is
nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to
kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support
your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions?
Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT

Geezus Tinkerntom, the point is the point. God, being omnipotent and
all,
would make perfect decisions about who to kill and why. Human beings
are not
perfect. And their systems of justice are not perfect. The death
penatly is
disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and men. If you
are a
poor person from a visibile minority who kills a white person, you've
just
increased your odds substantially. Not to mention that the death
penalty is
not reversible in the event of error. Most modern socities feel
rather
strongly that state-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is just
about as
bad as it gets when it comes to miscarriage of justice Tinkerntom.
What say
you?

As for your need for evidence, what specifically are you looking for?
Bear
in mind that what I am pointing out to you is that human systems of
justice
are imperfect. Unless that is what you need for me to prove to you, I
don't
think much else is important to the point I am making. If you want to
learn
more about how the death penalty is applied unfairly (why you would
not know
that is beyond me) let me know.

Here's a little something about it:

Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (over
80%)
have been executed for killing white victims, although
African-Americans
make up about 50% percent of all homicide victims.

In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office
found "a
pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging,
sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study
concluded that
a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death
if the
murder victim was white. This confirms the findings of many other
studies
that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable
predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race
of the
victim.

Underlying the statistical evidence is the differential treatment of
African-Americans at every turn. From initial charging decisions
to plea
bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more
harshly
when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value
when
they are victims. Furthermore, all-white or virtually all-white
juries
are still commonplace in many localities.

Racial Bias Facts:
A study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making
allowances
for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in
Philadelphia
are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American.
(David
Baldus, et al., Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post
Furman
Era. Cornell Law Review, September 1998.)

In March 1998, Kentucky became the first state to pass a Racial
Justice Act.
The Kentucky bill allows defendants in capital cases to use
statistical
evidence of racial discrimination to show that race influenced the
decision to seek the death penalty. Should the judge find that
race was a
factor, the death penalty would be barred. The U.S. House of
Representatives has passed a similar bill on two occasions, but it
has
been defeated in the Senate.

In May 2002, Maryland Governor Glendening imposed a moratorium on
executions
in his state because of concerns regarding the issue of racial bias
in
Maryland's death penalty system. In Maryland, 67% of the people on
death
row are African-American, the highest percentage of any state
death row.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, in 1998, 81% of the state's
homicide victims were African American, yet 84% of death sentences
resulted from cases involving white victims.

A review of the federal death penalty by the Justice Department,
released on
September 12, 2000, found numerous racial and geographic disparities.
The
report revealed that 80% of the cases submitted by federal
prosecutors
for death penalty review in the past five years have involved
racial
minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the
defendant
was African-American.

"=8Aracial discrimination pervades the U.S. death penalty at every
stage of
the process=8A. There is only one way to eradicate ethnic bias, and
the
echoes of racism, from death penalty procedures in the United
States-and
this is by eradicating the death penalty itself." --Killing with
Prejudice:
Race and the Death Penalty in the USA, Amnesty International, May
1999

KMAN, it appears that you are done with the controversy with rick. If
so I would be very interested in your perspective on the issues you
raise here, and the stimulation to thinking. However I am not
interested in wading through more "He said, He said" post. So I will
venture forth and see what happens.

Also, allow me to be picky on this point as well. Is it important in
your argument about these issues to include the "What would Jesus do?"
aspect? Judging from what I have already read, I would have to say that
at best it is tangential. If it is important, you will need to be able
to back it up with pertinent scriptures, which I expect you really
could care less about, and are possibly not qualified to present
scriptural evidence.

That being the case, I would strongly recommend that you not try to
make the case based on the "WWJD" argument, since I am not convinced
that you are particularly qualified to talk about the subject. I am not
trying to be mean, just recommending that we both agree up front, so we
don't get distracted by something that is not central to the
discussion. You have enough experience to know that I am more than
willing to stand toe to toe if you insist.

I would also recommend that you restrict any reference to God, or
spiritual matters for the same reason. Do not compromise the stength of
your arguement by making presumptions that you know little about or at
least are not able to back up. In other words, I would rather you not
blow smoke in my face, talking about the omnipotence of God, as if some
how that strengthen your arguement with me. It does not, just make your
argument, stay off the God subject, and I will try to consider your
arguments on their own merits. If you want to talk about God, we can
always do that at another time. You might say I am trying to let you
off the hook on this, if you would like.

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

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


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

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

Mark

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
. ..

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


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

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

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Mark

Tinkerntom never played dodge ball.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#10 Have Fun!

Thanks for your interest. TnT

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


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

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

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

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

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

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

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

Mark

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

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


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

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

Mark

No, Chess. TnT

I can see it now...

"Checkmate, Tinkerntom!"

"Ah, checkmate you say my friend! Well, I will tell you, I have had many
experiences in my life, and when you say checkmate to me, I find myself
wondering what qualifies you to make such a statement, and I wonder if you
know that God loves you. Before we proceed any further with this game, I ask
that you take back your last three moves, and that we start fresh. If you
are willing to proceed on that basis, I will look forward to continuing our
journey together!"