Why post this?

The people you hope to offend would be very likely to *approve* of
turning our service academies in to Christian-only organizations and
nobody else will be the least surprised. Remember, this is the era in
which 52-53% of the public votes "values".

Been boating lately?

On 6 Jun 2005 07:49:14 -0700, wrote:

Why post this?

The people you hope to offend would be very likely to *approve* of
turning our service academies in to Christian-only organizations and
nobody else will be the least surprised. Remember, this is the era in
which 52-53% of the public votes "values".

Been boating lately?

He posted that for the same reason you added your paragraph, to be inflammatory.
Your comment, that those he hopes to offend "...would be very likely to
*approve* of turning our service academies in to Christian-only
organizations...", I find very distasteful and offensive. It *assumes* a
religious intolerance that may or may not exist. In my case, it doesn't.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

It *assumes* a
religious intolerance that may or may not exist. In my case, it doesn't

*********
Which is why it is "likely", not "certain".

And as far as "religious intolerance may not exist!".....that's a very
interesting approach.
Does it salve the conscience when applied to other social issues as
well? That puts religious intolerance into the same junk-science
category as global warming, doesn't it?

My point remains; Harry is once again getting out of control with these
political trollings.
Everybody already *knows* what the ten guys who will get outraged, call
him names, take the
discussion to a personal level, etc, are going to do and say- including
Harry. Very boring.

Naw. I filter out most of the vermin, Chuckster, and that includes the
"anon" posters, the 43 variations of "Smithers," et cetera. I've
unfiltered Hertvik and put him on probation for a while (I guess it
isn't double secret probation any longer), and I do enjoy watching
Herring try to push behaviorial standards he won't follow himself onto
others.

**********

Isn't posting a bunch of stuff designed to agitate people you claim you
have filtered sort of like detonating a bomb via long distance phone
call? The mess and devastation is just as great, only you are far
enough removed you don't have to deal with it.

So why stir up this crap, get about ten guys into a bitchy mood (that
they carry into other threads), attract every netkop patrolling
cyberspace, and then *filter out* the responses?
Why not strive to be more frequently on topic?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Naw. I filter out most of the vermin, Chuckster, and that includes the
"anon" posters, the 43 variations of "Smithers," et cetera. I've
unfiltered Hertvik and put him on probation for a while (I guess it
isn't double secret probation any longer), and I do enjoy watching
Herring try to push behaviorial standards he won't follow himself onto
others.

**********

Isn't posting a bunch of stuff designed to agitate people you claim you
have filtered sort of like detonating a bomb via long distance phone
call? The mess and devastation is just as great, only you are far
enough removed you don't have to deal with it.

So why stir up this crap, get about ten guys into a bitchy mood (that
they carry into other threads), attract every netkop patrolling
cyberspace, and then *filter out* the responses?
Why not strive to be more frequently on topic?

Borrrrrringggggg

On 6 Jun 2005 08:09:10 -0700, wrote:

It *assumes* a
religious intolerance that may or may not exist. In my case, it doesn't

*********
Which is why it is "likely", not "certain".

And as far as "religious intolerance may not exist!".....that's a very
interesting approach.
Does it salve the conscience when applied to other social issues as
well? That puts religious intolerance into the same junk-science
category as global warming, doesn't it?

My point remains; Harry is once again getting out of control with these
political trollings.
Everybody already *knows* what the ten guys who will get outraged, call
him names, take the
discussion to a personal level, etc, are going to do and say- including
Harry. Very boring.

And my point (in no way defending Harry) was that your post was the same thing
as Harry's, a troll. In my case, the religious intolerance you want to "very
likely" dump on conservatives, does not exist.

As for other social issues, ask and I'll tell. I personally don't see the
relationship between religious intolerance and global warming.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:27:36 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 08:09:10 -0700, wrote:


It *assumes* a
religious intolerance that may or may not exist. In my case, it doesn't

*********
Which is why it is "likely", not "certain".

And as far as "religious intolerance may not exist!".....that's a very
interesting approach.
Does it salve the conscience when applied to other social issues as
well? That puts religious intolerance into the same junk-science
category as global warming, doesn't it?

My point remains; Harry is once again getting out of control with these
political trollings.
Everybody already *knows* what the ten guys who will get outraged, call
him names, take the
discussion to a personal level, etc, are going to do and say- including
Harry. Very boring.


And my point (in no way defending Harry) was that your post was the same thing
as Harry's, a troll. In my case, the religious intolerance you want to "very
likely" dump on conservatives, does not exist.

As for other social issues, ask and I'll tell. I personally don't see the
relationship between religious intolerance and global warming.



Many of those who refuse to accept "global warming" are the religiously
intolerant. A coincidence?

I'm sure many of those who *accept* global warming are *very* religiously
intolerant! A coincidence?

--
John H

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003