in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/17/05 11:29 PM:


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

KMAN wrote:
in article , Melissa at
wrote on 3/14/05 11:36 PM:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Tinkerntom,

On 14 Mar 2005 20:16:06 -0800, you wrote:

Did you get a chance to check out those two links I left for
you
on
one of our last post prior to the week end? I found them
interesting in that they come from Alan Keyes who is as
representative of the conservative religious right as you can
get.
I am wondering if anyone else on that side of the aisle has
read
his observations, and is takeing heed? I suspect that there is
a
ground swell already building.

When I get a chance I may find those links to have a look, but
are
you
aware of the situation between Keyes and his lesbian daughter?

Here's a Washington Post article about them:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb12.html

Here's what Maya herself had to say about it:

http://tinyurl.com/6g44n

Sure, she's 19, and responsible for herself, but it wasn't until
after
she "came out" publicly about her sexual orientation that her
parents
decided to "cut her loose". Interesting "family values" at the
very
least.

- --
Melissa

Hey now Melissa, just because he has turned his back on his own
daughter...if only Dick Cheney could feel the love of god as
strongly
as
Alan Keyes, he'd kick his daughter to the curb too! But no, the
best
Dick
can muster is to be quietly disapproving. Satan has made him weak,
whereas
the blood of Christ flows thorugh Alan's veins and gives him the
strength to
hate his own daughter. Religion is so beautiful!

Religion is ugly and a deadly poison. Jesus said I came to give you
life, and to give it to you abundantly. So obviously they are two
diffierent things, though some still can't seem to keep them
separate!
TnT

Religion is the term that describes how human beings apply deity
belief to
real world practices. It's all about power and control. And it is
ugly.

It seems that we have already discussed the subject of religion, was
there some new insight you desired to share, by returning to the
subject?

Uh. Looking at the context above, it appears you made a statement about
religion and I respond to that statement, so I'm not really sure where you
are coming from with the suggestion that I "returned" to the subject.

If you do not have anything specific in mind, I ask Melissa a question
off line, that she apparently is too busy to get into. I understand how
that is, however I could ask you the same question if you would be
interested, though I would probably have to rephrase it for the
different circumstances. Let me know if you are interested. You might
even check with her, and she may be able to tell you what I ask her,
and it would save some time, TnT

I'm sorry Tinkerntom, I honestly have no idea what the above paragraph is
supposed to mean.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/17/05 11:29 PM:


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

KMAN wrote:
in article , Melissa at
wrote on 3/14/05 11:36 PM:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Tinkerntom,

On 14 Mar 2005 20:16:06 -0800, you wrote:

Did you get a chance to check out those two links I left for
you
on
one of our last post prior to the week end? I found them
interesting in that they come from Alan Keyes who is as
representative of the conservative religious right as you can
get.
I am wondering if anyone else on that side of the aisle has
read
his observations, and is takeing heed? I suspect that there is
a
ground swell already building.

When I get a chance I may find those links to have a look, but
are
you
aware of the situation between Keyes and his lesbian daughter?

Here's a Washington Post article about them:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb12.html

Here's what Maya herself had to say about it:

http://tinyurl.com/6g44n

Sure, she's 19, and responsible for herself, but it wasn't
until
after
she "came out" publicly about her sexual orientation that her
parents
decided to "cut her loose". Interesting "family values" at the
very
least.

- --
Melissa

Hey now Melissa, just because he has turned his back on his own
daughter...if only Dick Cheney could feel the love of god as
strongly
as
Alan Keyes, he'd kick his daughter to the curb too! But no, the
best
Dick
can muster is to be quietly disapproving. Satan has made him
weak,
whereas
the blood of Christ flows thorugh Alan's veins and gives him the
strength to
hate his own daughter. Religion is so beautiful!

Religion is ugly and a deadly poison. Jesus said I came to give
you
life, and to give it to you abundantly. So obviously they are two
diffierent things, though some still can't seem to keep them
separate!
TnT

Religion is the term that describes how human beings apply deity
belief to
real world practices. It's all about power and control. And it is
ugly.

It seems that we have already discussed the subject of religion,
was
there some new insight you desired to share, by returning to the
subject?


I guess that is why I am a bit confused as well! When checking the
daily post, there were two by me at 8:28 am, 3/17, and one by you at
8:36 am, under the title, "Repost: About Scotty". Except I did not
do any posting this AM. and the post are copies of post from a couple
of days ago, so I figured somehow, you know how to repost previously
post comments, and were interested in "returning" to the discussion
about "religion". Something strange may be going on with Google
archives!

Uh. Looking at the context above, it appears you made a statement
about
religion and I respond to that statement, so I'm not really sure
where you
are coming from with the suggestion that I "returned" to the subject.

If you do not have anything specific in mind, I ask Melissa a
question
off line, that she apparently is too busy to get into. I understand
how
that is, however I could ask you the same question if you would be
interested, though I would probably have to rephrase it for the
different circumstances. Let me know if you are interested. You
might
even check with her, and she may be able to tell you what I ask
her,
and it would save some time, TnT

I'm sorry Tinkerntom, I honestly have no idea what the above
paragraph is
supposed to mean.

No apologies necessary. I was also assuming from your comments that
Melissa did email you the copy of what she sent me. It was quite
interesting, and I was interested in asking her some questions.
However, she indicated that she is very busy, and was not sure that she
would have the time. So, based on my previous misunderstanding of the
above posting activity, I thought that if you were interested, we could
pursue my question. I did not want to ask it though unless you are
interested, and I even encouraged you to check with her, and she could
share my question with you that I ask her. That would allow us to get
into the question, maybe more directly, though there would probably
need to adjust the exact question for the different circumstances of
talking with you, vs. with her! TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/18/05 12:25 AM:

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/17/05 11:29 PM:


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

KMAN wrote:
in article , Melissa at
wrote on 3/14/05 11:36 PM:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Tinkerntom,

On 14 Mar 2005 20:16:06 -0800, you wrote:

Did you get a chance to check out those two links I left for
you
on
one of our last post prior to the week end? I found them
interesting in that they come from Alan Keyes who is as
representative of the conservative religious right as you can
get.
I am wondering if anyone else on that side of the aisle has
read
his observations, and is takeing heed? I suspect that there is
a
ground swell already building.

When I get a chance I may find those links to have a look, but
are
you
aware of the situation between Keyes and his lesbian daughter?

Here's a Washington Post article about them:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb12.html

Here's what Maya herself had to say about it:

http://tinyurl.com/6g44n

Sure, she's 19, and responsible for herself, but it wasn't
until
after
she "came out" publicly about her sexual orientation that her
parents
decided to "cut her loose". Interesting "family values" at the
very
least.

- --
Melissa

Hey now Melissa, just because he has turned his back on his own
daughter...if only Dick Cheney could feel the love of god as
strongly
as
Alan Keyes, he'd kick his daughter to the curb too! But no, the
best
Dick
can muster is to be quietly disapproving. Satan has made him
weak,
whereas
the blood of Christ flows thorugh Alan's veins and gives him the
strength to
hate his own daughter. Religion is so beautiful!

Religion is ugly and a deadly poison. Jesus said I came to give
you
life, and to give it to you abundantly. So obviously they are two
diffierent things, though some still can't seem to keep them
separate!
TnT

Religion is the term that describes how human beings apply deity
belief to
real world practices. It's all about power and control. And it is
ugly.

It seems that we have already discussed the subject of religion,
was
there some new insight you desired to share, by returning to the
subject?


I guess that is why I am a bit confused as well! When checking the
daily post, there were two by me at 8:28 am, 3/17, and one by you at
8:36 am, under the title, "Repost: About Scotty". Except I did not
do any posting this AM. and the post are copies of post from a couple
of days ago, so I figured somehow, you know how to repost previously
post comments, and were interested in "returning" to the discussion
about "religion". Something strange may be going on with Google
archives!

Using google to post to a newsgroup sucks ass, Tinkerntom.

Uh. Looking at the context above, it appears you made a statement
about
religion and I respond to that statement, so I'm not really sure
where you
are coming from with the suggestion that I "returned" to the subject.

If you do not have anything specific in mind, I ask Melissa a
question
off line, that she apparently is too busy to get into. I understand
how
that is, however I could ask you the same question if you would be
interested, though I would probably have to rephrase it for the
different circumstances. Let me know if you are interested. You
might
even check with her, and she may be able to tell you what I ask
her,
and it would save some time, TnT

I'm sorry Tinkerntom, I honestly have no idea what the above
paragraph is
supposed to mean.

No apologies necessary. I was also assuming from your comments that
Melissa did email you the copy of what she sent me. It was quite
interesting, and I was interested in asking her some questions.
However, she indicated that she is very busy, and was not sure that she
would have the time. So, based on my previous misunderstanding of the
above posting activity, I thought that if you were interested, we could
pursue my question. I did not want to ask it though unless you are
interested, and I even encouraged you to check with her, and she could
share my question with you that I ask her. That would allow us to get
into the question, maybe more directly, though there would probably
need to adjust the exact question for the different circumstances of
talking with you, vs. with her! TnT

I think one of the reasons you have trouble communicating is that you are
too brief.

KMAN wrote:
....snip...

Using google to post to a newsgroup sucks ass, Tinkerntom.

....snip..


I think one of the reasons you have trouble communicating is that you
are
too brief.

I agree! :) TnT

Melissa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi Tinkerntom,

On 17 Mar 2005 21:25:27 -0800, you wrote:

No apologies necessary. I was also assuming from your comments that
Melissa did email you the copy of what she sent me. It was quite
interesting, and I was interested in asking her some questions.
However, she indicated that she is very busy, and was not sure that
she would have the time.

I'll step in here for a moment to say this about that...

I've been sitting on your message for a couple of days because (1) I
*am* too busy to get into an involved theological discussion with
you, and (2) I told you that I really didn't want to get into an
involved theological discussion with you, and (3) Even though I
invited you to *comment on what I had written*, you chose not to.
Instead, you tried to turn the discussion into something else
entirely, and so (4) I've been trying to think up a tactful way to
say "sod off", but I haven't come up with just the right words quite
yet. ;-)

When I call you, semi-affectionately, "The Tinkering One", I'm
referring to your penchant for tinkering with the heads of those you
choose to converse with. It can be amusing for a few moments, but
after that, it begins to feel a bit tedious, and so I move on to
other things. I hope this doesn't offend you too terribly much. :-)

- --
Melissa

PGP Public Keys: http://www.willkayakforfood.tk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBQjqWqDEYqNTZBqoEAQN94gP+KKT9GpengXGXY5Ojoz db5Td+8GMwL4kH
H5gpmJSbvqJdzkp7r4Vjn5n2PVWz8RDCsLRi2/w9wwoqsIdr0Nur/oW4Vy656A3J
PHvO4rkM4ScgbAfRFZDE4H/hWwoIysycslPI9m1v0HgDWyijHJMKD2nwgE1j1dDi
X5g11DETrTc=
=FRB9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

As I have acknowledged, the penchant for tinkering, expresses itself in
many ways. I certainly did not want the opportunity to explore what you
shared, to go unexplored, and I did comment to the extent that I said
I found what you shared, very instructive. I also desired to keep what
you revealed off-list, to stay off-list if you so desired, and so I did
not go into detail here in the group. I assume you had your reasons,
and if for no other reason you did not want to get anymore involved
because you were busy with other things, and were not sure that even if
you had time that you desired to get involved in a theological
discussion with me. I tried to be sensitive to your request, spoken and
unspoken, and sensitively aware that it sounded like you have some
history on the subject, that though it may be instructive to me, it may
be beyond reasonable sensitivities to go there unless you led the way.

I have found your perspective as a paddler, and a woman, especially
enlightening, and appreciate your effort to assist me in my
understanding of certain issues. I did not desire to offend you, and I
am not offended by your reticence to engage me in a theological
conversation. I have found there is a time and a place for everything,
and if these were not in alignment for you, I was not prepared to force
the issue.

I have concidered what you said, and have attempted to mitigate my use
or certain language idioms that may be difficult for some to
understand, or even hear for whatever their reasons, so please do not
think that I did not hear you. My greatest comment is what I have
chosen to do, not only in reference to your input, and any subsequent
conversation with you, but also in reference to others, and in
particular KMAN.

Now I would be the first to acknowledge, that I love to tinker with
peoples heads. Please understand that though the evidence is not always
glaring, I usually start with my own. Also as you know by now, the area
of most dynamic tinkering surrounds the issues generally involved in
theology. I realize that this subject is not equally enjoyed by others,
and their enthusiasm quickly wears thin. However, I feel like I am in a
testing lab, and it is my privilege to keep testing, and probing, and
prodding. Some experiments may blow up in my face, but like another
ENTP, inventor, Thomas Edison, "I just find one more thing that did not
work!" So its back to the drawing board.

Now if you would like to discuss your email further, on-list or
off-list, I would be more than glad to engage you in the discussion, at
your convienence, and your discretion! TnT

Tinkerntom wrote:
....snip...

Now if you would like to discuss your email further, on-list or
off-list, I would be more than glad to engage you in the discussion,
at
your convienence, and your discretion! TnT

I reread your post, and if you desire to have me "sod off," though I do
not know exactly what that means, I can probably figure it out. And I
would definitely reserve any further comments as indicated above, in my
previous post, to a matter of sensitve consideration. The Tinkering One

Tink, in reference to Melissa's post:
==================
I reread your post, and if you desire to have me "sod off," though I do
not know exactly what that means, I can probably figure it out.
==============

It means that either (a) Melissa watches PBS and/or BBC America, or (b)
she's a fan of Brit-Flicks, or (c) she's lived in Britain, or (d) she
has an expanded vocabulary or (e) all of the above.

Let me translate, into 'murcan: F*CK OFF!

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink, in reference to Melissa's post:
==================
I reread your post, and if you desire to have me "sod off," though I
do
not know exactly what that means, I can probably figure it out.
==============

It means that either (a) Melissa watches PBS and/or BBC America, or
(b)
she's a fan of Brit-Flicks, or (c) she's lived in Britain, or (d) she
has an expanded vocabulary or (e) all of the above.

Let me translate, into 'murcan: F*CK OFF!

Cheers,
frtzw906

But now I have another problem, whats "'murcan"? Though I might be able
to figure that one out as well. :-)

As to any appropriate reponse, to her request: Lead on! TnT

Tink:
===============
As to any appropriate reponse, to her request: Lead on! TnT
==================

Well, just for starters, don't call her a "******", OK?

How about: "Look 'ere luv, I fancies you."

But I really should leave recommendations re an appropriate response to
"sod off" to any Brits in the group.

You see, that's what Canucks are good at; translating for Brits and
Yanks.

Kinda reminds me of watching "The Full Monty" with a bunch of Yanks in
the theater. One of my favorite bits was when the supervisor was trying
to get the choreography right and, finally, exasperated, he suggested
that it was just "like Sheffield United playing the offside trap".
Immediately, the guys in the flick got it, and most of the audience in
Vancouver (find me a kid that doesn't play soccer in Vancouver...) got
it. Most Yanks in the crowd; well, let's just say they didn't know what
others around them were laughing about.

WOW! How's that for OT?

frtzw906

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink:
===============
As to any appropriate reponse, to her request: Lead on! TnT
==================

Well, just for starters, don't call her a "******", OK?

How about: "Look 'ere luv, I fancies you."

But I really should leave recommendations re an appropriate response
to
"sod off" to any Brits in the group.

You see, that's what Canucks are good at; translating for Brits and
Yanks.

Kinda reminds me of watching "The Full Monty" with a bunch of Yanks
in
the theater. One of my favorite bits was when the supervisor was
trying
to get the choreography right and, finally, exasperated, he suggested
that it was just "like Sheffield United playing the offside trap".
Immediately, the guys in the flick got it, and most of the audience
in
Vancouver (find me a kid that doesn't play soccer in Vancouver...)
got
it. Most Yanks in the crowd; well, let's just say they didn't know
what
others around them were laughing about.

WOW! How's that for OT?

frtzw906

frtzw906

No disrespect meant at all, she is definitely a sweet heart, and by
lead on I was allowing her to show me the civilised way of being nice.
I probably need all the help I can get! Though to call her "luv, and I
fancies you", could get me in hot water with my true luv whom I surely
do fancy. No offense Melissa, but I get to live with her, and you are
just a another sweet sireen out there in this sea of fog horns. TnT