On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 03:51:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
message

ink.net...
Harrythenut does not want to admit he lost the election,
and
it
is
everyone
else in the country that is wrong.

Does your comment somehow negate the fact that there are
millions
of
loonies
walking around who actually believe this rapture nonsense,
and
are
willing
to manipulate politics here and overseas to fit their
hallucinations?



Does your comment somehow negate the fact that there are
millions
of
loonies walking around who actually believe the President
Bush
is
not
the
President, as they did not vote for him? That there are
millions
of
loonies
walking around who actually believe the Sen. Kerry would be
competant?



That has nothing to do with the original subject of this
thread.



Makes as much sense as you stating there are 65 mm loonies
waiting
the
rapture.



Simple, for you:

The
Number
Doesn't
Matter



Oh, now it does not matter?



1) Nobody can accurately determine the number.
2) If there were just eleven, but they had the president's ear,
they'd
be
dangerous.
3) You know there are millions. The proof? Nobody buys television
time
to
address a tiny audience. Turn on your TV on Sunday morning.



Now it is probably millions? Get your facts somewhat straight
before
posting, and people may pay attention to you.



Is this really the best you can do? Fixate on a number which nobody
can
accurately determine?



Is this really the best you can do? Throw out a huge number and then
say
well, the real number does not count?



Read slowly: I did not pick the number, nor did I claim it was accurate.
I
can only come to the same conclusion which you will agree with
(internally),
but deny (publicly) because it's convenient.



No, you stated the number as fact. You can not back up your facts, so
your
argument is a fallacy.



No. The OP posted a story which claimed the number to be fact. The author
certainly estimated, and probably on the high side. But, that doesn't
matter. Let's try this again, and for the last time.

Since you believe religious zealots should not influence politics in the
Middle East, do you also believe they should NOT do the same here?


Yes.

You are now asking a simple question. Earlier you were trying to imply that some
ridiculous story you heard was true. There is a big difference.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...


No. The OP posted a story which claimed the number to be fact. The author
certainly estimated, and probably on the high side. But, that doesn't
matter. Let's try this again, and for the last time.

Since you believe religious zealots should not influence politics in the
Middle East, do you also believe they should NOT do the same here?


Yes.

Good. Write to your president. Better yet, scream at your legislators. Your
president wouldn't understand anyway.


You are now asking a simple question. Earlier you were trying to imply
that some
ridiculous story you heard was true. There is a big difference.

The number mentioned in the story cannot be proved. The existence of large
numbers of such maniacs is clear, however.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:16:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


No. The OP posted a story which claimed the number to be fact. The author
certainly estimated, and probably on the high side. But, that doesn't
matter. Let's try this again, and for the last time.

Since you believe religious zealots should not influence politics in the
Middle East, do you also believe they should NOT do the same here?


Yes.

Good. Write to your president. Better yet, scream at your legislators. Your
president wouldn't understand anyway.

Why?
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:16:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..


No. The OP posted a story which claimed the number to be fact. The
author
certainly estimated, and probably on the high side. But, that doesn't
matter. Let's try this again, and for the last time.

Since you believe religious zealots should not influence politics in the
Middle East, do you also believe they should NOT do the same here?


Yes.

Good. Write to your president. Better yet, scream at your legislators.
Your
president wouldn't understand anyway.

Why?

Because you want them to watch out for policies that stink of religious
fundamentalism. Why indeed.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:24:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:16:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...


No. The OP posted a story which claimed the number to be fact. The
author
certainly estimated, and probably on the high side. But, that doesn't
matter. Let's try this again, and for the last time.

Since you believe religious zealots should not influence politics in the
Middle East, do you also believe they should NOT do the same here?


Yes.

Good. Write to your president. Better yet, scream at your legislators.
Your
president wouldn't understand anyway.

Why?

Because you want them to watch out for policies that stink of religious
fundamentalism. Why indeed.


Now you've come full-circle again. To what policies are you referring? Is Bush
about to start lobbing nukes to bring about this 'rapture' you folks seem so
enthralled with?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...


Good. Write to your president. Better yet, scream at your legislators.
Your
president wouldn't understand anyway.

Why?

Because you want them to watch out for policies that stink of religious
fundamentalism. Why indeed.


Now you've come full-circle again. To what policies are you referring? Is
Bush
about to start lobbing nukes to bring about this 'rapture' you folks seem
so
enthralled with?


John H

This is getting boring, so let's end it on a simple note. First of all,
pretend this happening on paper. Take a fat, black marker and eliminate all
occurrences of the word "nukes". I don't know where it came from, and you
are fixated on it.

Next: "to what policies", you asked. From my point of view, ***ANY***
thoughts from American religious zealots regarding the Middle East should be
ignored completely by any president. Period. The region is too hot,
emotionally, for some people to view it with any kind of objectivity. Even
sane people have a hard time with it. The insane can only be worse.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:32:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


Good. Write to your president. Better yet, scream at your legislators.
Your
president wouldn't understand anyway.

Why?

Because you want them to watch out for policies that stink of religious
fundamentalism. Why indeed.


Now you've come full-circle again. To what policies are you referring? Is
Bush
about to start lobbing nukes to bring about this 'rapture' you folks seem
so
enthralled with?


John H

This is getting boring, so let's end it on a simple note.

You're right.

First of all,
pretend this happening on paper. Take a fat, black marker and eliminate all
occurrences of the word "nukes". I don't know where it came from, and you
are fixated on it.


The 'nukes' came from the supposed requirement for an ending of the world to
achieve the 'rapture'.

Next: "to what policies", you asked. From my point of view, ***ANY***
thoughts from American religious zealots regarding the Middle East should be
ignored completely by any president. Period. The region is too hot,
emotionally, for some people to view it with any kind of objectivity. Even
sane people have a hard time with it. The insane can only be worse.


I agree that extremists from either religious *or* secular zealots should not be
the basis for decisions. They cannot, and should not, be totally ignored.
Senator Byrd, on the other hand, *should* be totally ignored.

Have a great day!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."