Insane Freaky Conservitive Kid

Well it seems some comments I made on Birth Control several months ago along with some other comments about sex found there way to this spooky ugly fucker.

Note To Americans: This is why it is important to vote for the Democrats.

http://home.dal.net/anti-porn/david_1dec99.jpg

This is his disturbing website, http://home.dal.net/anti-porn/

I am really starting to wonder about some of the people who lurk in this newgroup, I am afraid I retrieved the email this freak sent me while I was at school and I deleted almost right away.

To save you the effort of loading his website here are some choice cuts

5-15 year prison term for oral sex, I also want to ban the manufacture and sale of contraceptives (birth control) with a prison term of up to 1 year for violating this ban. Using contraceptives will warrant a fine of $5,000 or less these laws will be retroactive. The FOUR Rules of Sex:

1.. ONLY to the person you are married to. 2.. ONLY for procreation. 3.. ONLY in the missionary position. 4.. NO orgasm for the woman. GIRLS, CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS GUY DOESN'T HAVE GIRLS STANDING IN LINE?

Not only is he sexually boring as hell he is also a FASCIST!

I enjoy politics. I hope to run for either Village Council or Mayor in 2002. I am a Fascist, and I will fight as a "moral crusader" and will try to institute the above goals of mine to restore the Judeo-Christian values the United States was founded upon. My favorite Fascist heroes are Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Antonio de Salazar, Sani Abacha, Augusto Pinochet and Hafez al-Assad.

I like to watch Benny Hinn's This is Your Day, The Hour of Power with Rev. Robert Schuller, The 700 Club, 60 Minutes, and C-SPAN.

My favorite Gospel song is: Gimme That Old Time Religion (sung by Jack Scott).

My favorite Fascist songs are: Giovinezza, Balilla, and Fascetta Nera all Italian songs from the Mussolini era.

I guess we can sleep tight knowing there is no way in hell this guy will ever reproduce! hell I doubt many hairy homosexuals named Bubba would touch him.

The Contentious Objector

Don't you think it's probably meant to be a humorous site?

-Shez.

No, This was VERY serious, I have done alot of research on rightwing extremism in the United States to the point I have passed myself off as one and I can catch fakes.

He is one of those delightful American Jesus Freaks everyone in the UK and Colonies love to hate. He also weighed atleast 350lbs

I should have downloaded the site to my "Weird Shit" zip disc but I was playing MP3's of my zipdrive at that time and decided to do it later. DAMNIT!

The Contentious Objector

"Shez" wrote in message news:[email]...

and

$5,000

People like him just feed left-wing extremists even more. It's one big never ending cycle.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:11:33 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:11:33 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

That's a ponderous thought. Are Jesus Freaks a purely American phenomenon, or are there Jesus Freaks in other countries as well?

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

It is for the most part an American thing,

In Canada the Religious Right is one loud mouth idiot named Stockwell Day who is either laughed at or ignored.

There are a handfull in Australia but they are a very small minority.

And atleast as far as I have noticed there are none to speak of in the UK or Western Europe.

The United States had about 80,000,000.

Outside the US the Religious Right has no political power what-so-ever.

So the loudmouth conservitive evengelical Christians are a uniquely American deal.

The Contentious Objector

"Nicole Lee" wrote in message news:[email]...

fakes.

and

Asimov

strike.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:23:36 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

Actually, even the religious right don't particularly like him: he didn't take a hard enough line against gay rights.

You're obviously not an albertan. I'm guessing Toronto?

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:23:36 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

I don't know about that one. Wasn't there some One Race movement awhile back that managed to get around 40% of Australians voting for it? I think the woman behind it wanted to send the Asians back to Asia or something.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"I'm the master of the zing zang zoom!" -- Conan O'Brien

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

Yes the "One Nation Party" Paulene Hanson is a crackpot, she likes to run around in the nude wearing nothing but an Australian flag (and she REALLY doesn't have the body for it) She only took about 20% of the popular vote and was followed by rumors of electoral fraud. She and her marry band of idiots only took 11 seats in the Legislature of a single state (I forget which one and I don't feel like checking at the moment) they don't have official party status on the Federal level.

Yes, I did pull that out of my head, I have a near obcessive interest in UK and Colony politics

Trust me, the day she becomes Prime Minister or even leader of the Opposition I will start wearing a purple fedora and pick up Ebonics.

However her organization is secular, so they can't really be evengelical rightwing Jesus Freaks.

Hey, if anyone knows if this group has a website I would love to see it.

The Contentious Objector

I don't think they did that well. But unlike the US, the extreme right in Europe and Australia is quite secular.

In fact the nearest equivalent to the American religious right I can think of are the Northern Irish Unionists. Particularly the more extreme Democratic Unionists who do tend to combine a religious and right wing political ideology in their world view. But even here, I'd guess a lot of them don't have much in the way of personal religous beliefs. Religion is simply a cultural and tribal badge.

I personally know an extremely religious Australian girl, who writes Disney toon fanfic and other types of fiction and poetry. But she's not intolerant of immigrants ...

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

That means I still have time to defect if the Republicans take the White House.

Milo "there will be a mad man in the white house, or a white man in the mad house" Minderbinder.

P.S.

Also, how come white supremacists never seem to be represented by superior white people? It's always pimple faced, 350 pound males with medieval belief systems.

Milo Minderbender said:

The Republicans held the White House from 1981 through 1993. Nothing particularly terrible happened.

"Republican" does not mean "religious right lunatic."

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Nothing bad happened, because the House and Senate were Democraticly held. The balance of power prevented any of the real boneheaded proposals from going into effect.

The same balance worked in the '90's, when the Republicans took Congress, but a Democrat held the presidency. Boneheaded notions from the left of the spectrum were also prevented.

God help up if it all goes Republican! Republican may not equal "religous right lunatic" but, looking at one of their conventions, you would find it hard to believe.

Milo

Hey, wait up for me!! I certainly don't want Dubya, or any similar candidate, holding the highest office in the nation, even though I am sorta conservative-ish and pro death penalty (certainly not as much as Dubya, tho).

Hey...I hear London has a good Mexican restaurant...add in the Catholic churches and some kick-ass record stores and I won't ever need to go back home. Hm. (grabs some British history books and anything else that might be needed for any exams for citizenship)

*snicker*

Maybe it's because the superior white people aren't white supremacists. <Andy Taylor in "Sing Blue Silver"> Yes, that's the answer! </Andy Taylor in "Sing Blue Silver">

LI

"Lady Interference" wrote in message news:[email]...

Eww, I don't think you have to do an *exam* to become a naturalised British citizen!

The requirements are, in brief[1]: [ ] five years legal residence in the United Kingdom [ ] full age (18 or over) [ ] not of unsound mind [ ] good character [ ] sufficient knowledge of English, or Welsh, or Scottish Gaelic [ ] an intention to remain closely connected with the United Kingdom

I've not ticked any of the boxes for you. <g>

Martin.

[1] This is not a full statement of the law, etc., etc., and authoritative guidance is available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/british_nationality/british_nationality_01.html

You are so kidding me (clicks on link)...no, you're not. This means that becoming a British citizen is easier...WAY, WAY easier...than becoming an American citizen. To become an American citizen you have to take an American history/civics exam as well as have a good knowledge of the English language, among other things.

I just clicked on the link. MAN is it easy to become a British citizen. And considering that I have a Brit sig. other...oh man, this is too tempting. Granted, I will have to slough off my "ugly Americanism" and deal with MAJOR culture shock for awhile, but I think it'd be well worth the hassle. Oh geez, what to do now...LOL...

LI (who'll still bone up on British history/civics, just to be nice)

I think if we had a requirement that people pass an exam in British history to become citizens, most of our own population would have to be deported.

-Shez.

"Shez" wrote in message news:P$[email]...

LOL! <cough>

Good one, Shez.

Martin.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:42:21 +0100, Shez wrote:

Well, there is one easy way to become and American citizen: be born here. If you're from another country, you have to know about America than most natural-born citizens. But if you're born on American soil, even if it's just while your mother is passing through the country (it has to be provable), you are automatically an American citizen.

[email] (Shez) wrote in :

That's only because any liking for history that I may have had was systematically extinghished by the school system, I mean why oh why did we have to go over the Normans, the Victorians & the Tudors several times througout my journey through the system ? The really sickening thing is one of the two periods of history that I would have liked to study i.e. modern (20th century) history they started teaching the year after I gave it ou :( oh well.

Phill.

we did *loads* of stuff about nazi germany and communist russia and all. in fact, for my GCSE i think that was ALL we did. more relevant and interesting than the tudors of course, but i still didn't like history. :)

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:15:36 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Heck, history was always one of my favorite subjects (I always got straight "A"s, which shows how much it held my interest). My favorite period of study was the American Civil War; lots of very complex issues involving that little skirmish. I positively ate up Ken Burns' documentary "The Civil War," as well as the movie "Gettysburg." :-)

(And to those Southerners out there who have fond memories of the Confederacy: I'm thoroughly convinced that the South had absolutely no chance of winning that war. Not only did they not have a large enough industrial base, the "states rights" basis of their government would have torn them apart eventually, just as it did near the end of the Civil War. Getting support from overseas might have prolonged the conflict, but IMHO the outcome would still have been the same.)

"Martin J. Pollard" wrote:

So I take it you've never read any Harry Turtledove books. That man is quite capable of dreaming up 6 Confederacy-wins scenarios before breakfast. :-)

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:01:18 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

Can't say that I have, no. Interesting reading, I take it?

I'm sure. :-) I suppose it's possible that the South could've pulled a victory out of its hat, though I still maintain that Robert E. Lee would've had to get over his hubris to make that happen (it's a big reason why he lost at Gettysburg). IMHO, a great many coincidences would've been needed to give the South a chance, coincidences that it obviously didn't get. :-)

Does he address the problem I pointed out, namely, the Confederacy's "states rights" policy eventually bringing them down as the states inevitably degenerate into squabbling over everything? (During the war, for example, the governor of North Carolina forbade anyone else to wear the 90,000+ uniforms it was hoarding.) Or how about the fact that their allowance of slavery would've eventually made them a pariah in a world that had all but totally abolished the practice, even by the 1860s?

A military victory is one thing; long-term survival, however, is quite a different bushel of cotton. :-)

Martin J. Pollard wrote in message news:[email]...

I quite agree. Like Gen. Longstreet told Col. Freemantle (the British observer) "You and I both know that England would never ally itself with a Confederacy that had the institution of slavery." And, in what I thought was one of the better lines in the movie, "We should have freed all the slaves and THEN fired on Ft. Sumter."

Glad someone else likes that movie. I recently bought a copy after playing the version I taped off of TNT a couple of years ago into near unwatchability.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:06:28 -0700, "NV Raptor" wrote:

_Gettysburg_ is an interesting film, although sometimes it does take on the aspect of a West Point field trip and lecture, what with the Union Cavalry officer at the start telling everyone and sundry why he's doing everything before he does it.

Still, Jeff Daniels' portrayal in the battle at Little Roundtop was brilliant.

I think Kevin Spacey would have made a better Robert E. Lee than Martin Sheen.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Well, to be fair - in the first book ("Guns of the South") it takes time traveling South African Klan-wannabes bringing AK47s. In the second, much more plausible scenario he simply keeps Lee's battle plans out of the hands of McClellan before um, Fredricksburg I believe. That one's in the quick setup chapter of "How Few Remain" - which is mainly just to set up his current WWI revamp series and justify the North coming in with Germany (since the South was historically allied with the British since the Civil War).

The separatism of the Confederacy he glosses over a good deal. In fact, after reading one or two of his books you really start to wonder why the South would stay hostile to the North to the extent it does (and why the North seems to get only idiots for Generals and planners... :P ) since the both seem to end up with strong central governments. C'est la vie.

The second point is well addressed, with foreign pressure eventually causing the Confederacy to emancipate in both timelines (Lee's government does it much earlier in "Guns of the South" after having the chance to read what our decade thinks of the practice. No vindication anywhere there.)

Don

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:49:07 -0400, Don Morris wrote:

I had a feeling that it'd be something bizarre. :-)

I remember that one... Lee's battle plans inadvertantly were found by a cavalryman, and were given to McClellan. Unfortunately, the damn fool didn't *do* anything with them! One of the biggest military blunders in modern warfare, and McClellan wasted it! The biggest mystery, to me, is why Lincoln put McClellan in charge of the Union army *THREE TIMES* before getting the hint (it was obvious to everyone else that McClellan was paranoid to the point of ineffectiveness about Lee's army, always imagining it to be larger than it really was).

To me, this would seem to contradict Mr. Turtledove's contention that keeping the plans out of the North's hands would've given the South an advantage, since the outcome in the "real" timeline is effectively the same. Maybe he needs to read up on Civil War history just a bit more, perhaps? <grin>

Well, McClellan winning the presidency over Lincoln would account for a great deal of that. :-)

So in one timeline (or perhaps both), Lee ascends to the Confederate presidency (ala Washington) and does a Lincoln on the slaves? Makes sense, since as you said, foreign opposition would've left the CSA with very little choice. I presume that a lot of use is made of the time travel device in "GotS," since you mentioned time-travelling South Africans and, now, Lee getting to see what the "modern world" thinks of slavery (did he time travel, or did he receive newspapers and other historical documents?).

Bizarre, but handled well. You might want to give it a read. :)

Well to be fair, McClellan did try a _little_. He tried to mount an attack of sorts while Lee's army was in pieces and vulnerable. Just an inept attack. The difference is that McClellan did _something_, and the Union was alerted to Lee's plans. In the alternate history, Lee's army flanked McClellan and took Philadelphia long enough to bring in the British and French on the South's side.

Only thing I can think of as far as the other point was that there wasn't much of a choice in the East. I mean, Burnside... Hooker? Bleah. At least McClellan could train the Army. :) Seriously, if Shiloh hadn't happened in the West, I have a feeling Grant would've come East about a year earlier. That would've been interesting.

I think he went with several no-names after Lincoln in the alter-US. No one that stuck in my mind until we got Teddy in office for WWI against the South's Woodrow Wilson.

He seems to justify it with the North having no concept of pre-planning an attack (which naturally sets up hooking up with the Prussians), both on land and on sea. I mean, come _on_... does anyone seriously think that the North in that situation wouldn't go into an arms race and get battleship fleets corresponding to those of the Spanish-American War era on both oceans and the Great Lakes to take on the Royal Navy? (This is by 1885-ish, btw). Mindboggling to think of anything else.

The time traveling effects are held off during the middle of the story (most of the book) which deals with the immediate aftermath of the War and the establishment of the peacetime CSA. Only the initial AK47 effect and then the problems kicking the Aryan White Brotherhood _out_ of the country after they figure out that Lee isn't going to jump when they say frog use it. And Lee actually gets to read "The Illustrated Guide to the Civil War" that most people have around somewhere, amoung other works such as various Lincoln bios, Grant's memoirs, etc. The AWB boys brought along quite a few works to help them figure out how to manipulate people and events (small time machine plus other limitations pretty much necessitated establishing a base, as it were, in the 1860s). No one from the South ever went forward.

Don

Don Morris wrote in message news:[email]...

I dunno, by 1863 there were at least a couple of potential candidates. Perhaps they just weren't senior enough. Specifically I'm thinking of John Reynolds and Winfield Scott Hancock. I believe Reynolds was actually offered command of the Army of the Potomac, but declined, not wanting be to micromanaged and hurried into an offense that he wasn't prepared for. Hancock seemed to enjoy a pretty solid reputation as a commander even among his Confederate opponents.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:14:25 -0700, "NV Raptor" wrote:

Burnside was the Homer Simpson of the Union Army. His performance at Antietam was pathetic. His performance at the Battle of the Crater was criminal.

McClellan? He could have had the 1st Byelorussian Front under his command and he'd still have thought he was outnumbered.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Why would I ever think that? Works for me.

So how did he manage to keep the time-space continuum intact? In the Civil War fan-fiction I wrote, I had spawn another universe to keep everything intact. Perserving Lincoln's life alone would have probably made the Aryan White Brotherhood disappear into a cloud of contradictions.

He never comes out and says it - but I'm assuming that the time line _had_ to fork, otherwise it's a major paradox. The AWB comes back and helps, causing Lee to win the War, the CSA Pres., and do what the AWB doesn't want him to do -- causing the AWB to have no reason to go back, meaning that the timeline occurs as originally happened, causing the AWB to go back... *Einstein migraine time!*

He pulls this off since it seems that no one who went to the past ever went back to the future, and after the initial perturbations all their information was no longer accurate -- which only works on a fork instead of a "Back to the Future" morphing.

Don

Well the "Guns of the South" gets Lee to Washington by the smelliest, hairiest deus ex machina you ever say in your life.

The remaining 3/4 of the book is what makes it worth reading. As it deals with the internal politics of the victorious South and it's relationship with the Union during the 4 or 5 years after the war which unsurprisingly has slavery as the central theme.

The book does deify Robbert Lee somewhat, I don't know enough about him to comment, I just mistrust that sort of thing on general principle.

Michael Morton said:

Not that Turtledove is in any way pro-slavery or racist, mind you.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

i got a B in my GCSE, which probably translates to an A or B in the US grade system (A-D, is it?). as i said though, not one of my favourites subjects. too much writing and not enough thinking. :)

iirc we didn't do anything about that. we did some stuff about america in the 1920s (i think; i can never remember dates), but that was about it. :)

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Yeah alas as I said by the time they started teaching the interesting stuff, I'd dropped history, if I'd known I may have tkaen it for an O level instead of Design :) Yeah that's pretty much how I feel I can see the relevance of 20th centuary history, because it has a direct bearing on how the world is today, also I'd have had good refference material in my parents/grandparents etc :) The other period that kinda interests me we sorta touched on in R.E. ancient history.

Phill.

i always (shock!) kinda liked RE. i like to learn about religions so i can do better in arguments with religious people. :D i learnt the other day that the stuff in the bible about homosexuality being a sin is from a bit that also prohibits having sex with a menstruating woman, cutting your hair if you're male, and eating pork (http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/bible.html ), though of course our RE teacher would never have told us that.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:55:41 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Because he'd be wrong. The Biblical basis for homosexuality's status as a sin is not Isrealite law as some people would have you believe. Homosexuality is referred to as an "abomination to God" or words to that effect in other places of the Bible, ecspecially if you go back to the original Greek and Hebrew.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

i don't know hebrew or ancient greek, but according to that page... oh just read the page, if you haven't already. :)

anyway, what WAS the biblical basis for homosexuality as a sin? what did they think was wrong with it?

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:39:56 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

I did. It's very slanted. I wouldn't take that seriously any more than I'd expect you to take a Christian chat site like my mom frequents seriously.

Those are two different questions. The chapters and verses are sprinkled everywhere from Genisis to Revelation. Ecspecially Revelation. My Dad would know that part better than I, I might ask him later.

It's a subconscious affront to God. God set up a system of reproduction in which men and women paired off, and everyone was happy.

Homosexuality is not, from the Christian perspective, an innate aspect of oneself. It is (like all other sins) a sympton of man's subconscious inclination to try and stick it to God. It's your soul saying "You came up with the male/female system, well here's what I think of it!". It's that attitude which makes all people sinful and thus unworthy of heaven (without the help of Christ, of course...). I could participate in a massive gay orgy in the middle of Central Park and it would be no more of a sin than telling a white lie, because they are both simply my souls way of declaring my rejection of God.

People who declare Christianity but totter around with signs that say "God hates faggots" are not only entirely missing the point, its a good bet they have secretly rejected God too.

This is where some people will try to say they have "proof" that homosexualily is in fact biological or something like that, but I've never seen such proof, so it's probably best to agree to disagree.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8kd7vc$jm2$[email]...

If you need to find out about the Bible, shouldn't you ask that expert, Dr. Laura? Although to my knowledge, she hasn't answered *this* letter yet.... --------- Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a.. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

b.. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c.. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d.. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

e.. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f.. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g. Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. -------------- But the real reason I'm making this reply (and I'm sooooo glad I happened to pick a couple of posts on this thread to read) is....

What do you mean, *could*? I've got the photos. :-)

On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:45:21 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

This is yet another reason I can't stand Dr. Laura. People like her give Christians a bad name all around.

Off the top of my head I can give you 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a good start. Like I said, my dad would know a lot more.

Damn.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 11 Jul 2000 02:27:56 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Given that she's Jewish, that's quite a trick!

No matter what else you say about her, she's versatile! :)

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On 11 Jul 2000 02:27:56 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

It is time you learned more.

butbutbuuut, homosexuality doesn't *stop* one reproducing any more than celibacy does.

ugh, they annoy me so much. if god hates so many people, why are they worshipping him? why not tell him to go fuck himself, so to speak? it's not even so much the fact that they're wrong as the fact that they can't make up their own minds and have to let god do it for them.

i don't think that homosexuality is biological - wouldn't it have died out pretty damn fast? i don't think it's a choice (conscious or otherwise) either, i think it's perhaps to do with sexual stereotyping and failure to accept one's 'role' in society as a man/woman.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:16 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

It's not about the result, it's about doing it God's way. God set up the system, and homosexuality is an intentional affront to it, albeit subconscoius.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

but it's just irrelevant. that's like saying cooking (i'm hungry, ok?) is an affront to god's way, because you can't conceive and cook at the same time with any great degree of ease.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:50:43 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Reproduction is not the only result of the traditional male/female relationship. It is also meant as a type/shadow of God's relationship with man.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

yeah but homosex doesn't prevent reproduction any more than *not having sex* does. so it's as irrelevant as any other activity that doesn't result in babies.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:05:05 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Obviously not in God's eyes, or he wouldn't have said otherwise in his divinely inspired word.

Whether it interferes with the basic processes or not, it's still symbolic of rejection of God.

See why human logic (logic itself being a flawed format, human thinking adding to it only making it worse) can't be applied to something like this?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

who says he's right? he could be lying.

but it isn't, if it doesn't interfere with the process.

oh yes it can.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:05:06 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

No one says he's right. That's why, as with ALL of these conversations, it comes down to a basic matter of faith.

Why not? I could pee on your leg and it wouldn't stop you from walking, but it'd be damned insulting.

Of course it can't. Because you can't logically prove an all-powerful being doesn't exist, and I can apply any action I want to such a being.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

so why would one believe him instead of satan?

that's nasty. homosexuals aren't being nasty to god when they have sex, they're just having sex.

human logic says, what's the point in believing in something that isn't noticeably doing anything and has never noticeably done anything?

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:11:30 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Faith.

how do YOU know what's nasty to God and what isn't?

He healed my legs when I was born, and healed my mother of breast cancer. He's also filled me with his spirit. Good enough for me.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :

Yeah but's what's to stop us having faith in Satan's actions, promises or whatever ? You can have faith in anything :)

<Beavis> If you did I'd kick your ass :) </Beavis>

Yeah good question how do *YOU* either ?

People always go on about what God's views are, what he/she wants ect, when even if there is a God/Gods, then we have no way of knowing directly what they do want of us. Ok we have holy books such as the Bible etc, but for all we know they could be just a bunch of stories passed down to us we have no way of proovin that they are the word of God, I guess that's where faith comes in. Oh by the way if that makes me a heretic so be it :)

But you can't prove that they exist either. Yeah but the same is also true of Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy ect.

And you can demonstrate that this is infact true ?

Reasonable, that's personal choice.

Note Kyle, I'm *NOT* attacking your faith, you have a perfect right to believe what the hell you like, and you can tell me to sod off if you think I've gone too far :)

Phill.

A lot of people take the Holocaust as the conclusive proof of the
non-existence of God. However this does presuppose certain things:
   - that God is good
   - that he's not anti-semitic
   - that he has the capability to intervene on the physical plane, as
opposed to being a purely metaphysical creature
   - that he's actually noticed the existence of Earth, situated as it is
in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western
spiral arm of the Milky Way. (I mean, who would even want to visit a
galaxy that was named after a confectionery product?).

Perhaps better evidence for the non-existence of God is that Richard Dawkins has not yet been struck down by a bolt of lightning.

-Shez.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:34:14 +0100, Shez wrote:

-that he believes the earthly lives of a few million people is valid reason to circumcede free will

-that the Holocaust didn't have some hidden value

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:10:44 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Do you believe in him? If not, why should what people say his opinion is concern you so? Why should the opinions of people who, in your view, are supersitious backwaters, be of such importance that you become agitated by it?

[email] (Tarvok) wrote in :

See my sorta reply to this in another part of the thread :)

Phill.

Not that i posted anything before, but.....

People (such as myself) get upset over what "religious backwaters" say God's views are because these same views are always the ones they hold. Sometimes this just pisses you off. For instance, what about people who are so upset over the "murder of babies" that they blow up abortion clinics, killing the doctors and patients inside? That pisses me off.

Majikthise, who will leave for Canada in the morning. (And be there for my birthday, gah gah dammit!)

"I'm not the type to just act like i know, puttin on an angle, puttin on a show" - Misdirected Hostility, 311

but why would one believe *him*? on what did you base your decision to believe god and not satan?

if god doesn't like it, that's his problem. i think we can ask some homosexuals or some psychologists and find out if homosexuals are subconsciously or consciously being nasty to god when they fuck.

how do you know it was him who healed your mother and you rather than satan, or the boy next door? why do you *think* it was him who healed your mother and you rather than satan, or the boy next door?

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:30:57 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Internal inclination along with his general benevolent effects in my life.

It's subconscious. They wouldn't know, and psychologists are very imperfect.

Faith.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle wrote:

<George Michael> 'Cos I've got to have faith, I've got to have faith, I've got to have faith-a-faith-a-faith-a, I've got to have faith-a-faith-a-faith! </George Michael>

Just felt like doing that. Heh.

LI (wondering how many people will now have that ditty running through their heads)

[email] (Lady Interference) wrote in :

Yes damn you, though at least his solo stuff was a bit better than the stuff he did with Wham! IMHO, and I rember it being in the charts yikes !

Ok, whilst we're on the 80's subject....

<Ultravox> Faithless in faith, we must behold the things we see.... </Ultravox>

Had a choice of UV lyrics there but....
1) the other was strictly late 70's
2) The otehr one may offend some people here, if you don't know which one
   I'm on about, LI, drop me an email and I'll send you the complete lyrics
   to the song, which would put the thing in context :)

Then there's DM....but they're always having a go at organised religion :)

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith wrote:

Hm...actually...(sheepish) I own a Wham! album...um, "Make it Big"...um, and I don't own any George Michael...*blushing*...and I like the Wham! album...*cringe*

Heh heh heh heh. It *is* my favorite musical/pop culture decade.

*squeal* ULTRAVOX! I LOVE THEM!

Um, really their music, actually, although Midge Ure *is* a real cutie...

Okie doke...(going to e-mail in a bit)

Also...ahhh, the late '70s...the John Foxx-led Ultravox. You know, for all of fifteen seconds I thought John Foxx was in Visage. D'oh. Of course, I was 15 and just starting to learn about the group.

Oh yeah. I know I can rattle off off the top of my head at least one DM lyric that fits that.

"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but I think that God has a sick sense of humor and when I die, I expect to find him laughing..."

*giggle* I love Depeche as well. Obviously. Actually, there's a huge DM fan base here in San Antonio, because DM has treated the city well. They've played here at least three times, which is way excellent. I think they've come here only slightly less than Metallica have, and Metallica are HUGELY mega here.

LI

[email] (Lady Interference) wrote in :

Err ok, I'll let you off, Isuppose all the other cool stuff that you are into makes up for it :)

Indeed.

Yeah they are pretty cool.

Whatever :) beins straight I would not notice that about Midge Ure :) he does have a reasonably good voice tho, which I guess is why he was in UV.

Though since you demontrated below that you may have heard said song, I was tinkning of "Fear In The Western World" from "Ha! Ha! Ha!", perticually the first verse :) Good punkish song. BTW the track before it "The Frozen Ones" I think would fit really well for the fassion club....listen to the lyrics :)

Heheheh Well I was totally un aware of the Foxx lead UV untill I had bought what I thought to be all there albums to date (in early 1986, bad year for me but that's another story....), and found it in HMV, and thought humm that's weird and bought it and never looked back. BTW did you know that John Foxx has recently (last couple of years), come out of hiding and started releasing albums again.

That is the one I was perticually thinking of. Prob with this lyric that most people have is mis-interpretation, they are not IMHO attacking religion per-se, just saying "If there is a God, then why the F**K is the world in such a bad state" :)

The of course there's "Personal Jesus" :)

Yeah I saw DM a couple of years ago on the Singles 86-98 tour, had been wanting to see them since I was 11 and never really got the time, nearly went to see Duran Duran shortly after but for some reason could not make it, wonder if the'll come here to promote "Pop Trash" ?

On the other side of this coin is of course bands like U2, where a reasonable percentage of the music is Christian based, though they are carefull to make it more widely accessable, guess they wouldn't have got so big if they hadn't :) Oh and BTW tecnically they're only half Irish :)

Phill.

but you don't knfor it was himm.

so how do yoi know what god thinks.?

yeah, WHY? thats what i asked.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

[Snip!]

Roll 1x D6 to decide on a god to follow :)

Seriously though, probably upbringing and conditioning, he's a member of the same religion as his parents. (no offence intended there Kyle).

And the answer would probably be no. For the most part the Homosexuals and Psychologists would probably laugh in your face if you sugested it.

<Butthead> uhuhuhuhu she said uhuhuhuhuhuh this chick's pretty cool uhuhuhuhu </Butthead>

Sorry Alli, couldn't resist :)

Or more logically that your mother was cured by something more mundane (a doctor for example). Since I don't know the details I can't comment any further, but at the mo am reasonably well aware of what is involved in treating it.

Phill.

yes.

i'm half a homosexaul.

may be the boy nest door is a doctor or satan or god/

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:11:30 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Who, or What is Satan? ;)

(Of corse, nobody will bother to answer that, because everybody figures that everybody knows, and yet, the vast majority has a view which has absolutely no basis in the Bible, the only document which really mentions him. )

[email] (Tarvok) wrote in :

It's a widely abused computer security scanner....no honestly it *IS*

Haha Somebody *DID* answer it, though not the one you expected :)

Phill.

Alli said:

LOL!

Are you aware of the mental image you just created in my head?

:D

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

quite possibly. ;)

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Jordan I think you've been watching too many dodgy sweedish pornos :) you know the sort where you can't understand the dialogue, but that doesn't really mayyer because grunt groan moan, means pretty much the same in any language :)

Phill.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote:

Great. Thanks a lot, Alli. You know how incredibly horny Jordan can be? I mean, almost all the time he spent down here he was cracking one dirty joke after another and making blatant sexual innuendoes in a lot of the conversations. I mean, this man is a walking ball of hormones.

Gawd, and *I* thought my 15-year-old "I have a crush on Nick Rhodes - David Bowie - Bryan Ferry - Matthew Sweet - Michael Stipe - Michael Hutchence - Peter Gabriel - Chris Stein - Midge Ure - Cy Curnin - Larry Mullen Jr. - John Lydon [aka Johnny Rotten]" self was a hormonal mess...LOL.

LI (who obviously had a lot of crushes when she was 15)

Diane said:

*lots of incoherent crazed wicked laughter* :-D

Well, you shoulda met me at 15 ;-)

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8ki6np$n3g$[email]...

If it's intentional, then GOD'S the one who made it intentional. After all, God made everyone in his own image, allegedly.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:31:53 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

But he also gave us free will. We were created in his image, but where we go from there is up to us.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

why did he bother giving us homosexual tendencies if he knew that we had the free will to use them?

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:06:28 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Who said he gave them to us?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

who else did?

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:12:31 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

People put them in themselves. We have free will.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8kl7sm$brl$[email]...

Wrong.

[email] (Jeg7777) wrote in :

<Grin> No he's right people participating in any sexual activity normally " put it in" :) </Grin>

<Butthead> uhuhuhuhu he said "put it in" uhuhuhuhu </Butthead>

Phill.

you are so dirty! ;p i just spilled my coffffe. argh.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Well at least you didn't end up trying to breeth your coffee and then spraying the front room when a friend manages to say a bunch of funny stuff whern you are dribking it like I did last night :)

Phill.

i poored berr on my face. it went in my nose.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Ah much the same thing then, tough I hadn't been drinking anything other than coffee, though I do have (maybe) some things in common with Trent.

Phill.

Alli said:

You're developing a "drinking problem".

(a la _Airplane_).

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote in message news:[email]...

Great movie!

Joe Surely you can't be serious....

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:07:31 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

Prove it.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

so he gives us free will... and then sends us to hell if we use it?

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

So in *effect* we don't have free will, is the logical conclusion of that argument....one of the reasons I kinda went off Christianity for myself (note I have nothing against anyone that is Christian, that is their choice).

As Pink Floyd once put it : "By the cold and religious we where taken in hand, shown how to feel good, then made to feel bad"

Phill.

alli wrote:

All right, I was going to stay out of this, and I'm sure Kyle is perfectly capable of answering, but...

No. God gives us free will. He also gives us, through conscience and revealed sources (scripture, or scripture and the magisterium if you accept the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox position) an idea of the consequences of the choices we make with that free will.

God sends no one to hell. A human can choose heaven or hell. God will give him or her whichever he or she chooses.

Here's a bit of RC thinking, of a particularly Thomistic stripe, and you're free to disagree, but according to this thinking, hell is the eternal state of those who choose to sever all ties with God. The way one does so is to commit sin. To be a sin, an act has to meet three criteria: serious matter, adequate reflection, and consent of free will. Paraphrase: the act has to be offensive to God. You have to know it's offensive to God. You have to freely choose to commit the act, and thereby deliberately offend God. If the act fails to meet just one of those criteria, it's not, in itself, sinful, and therefore does not condemn the actor.

And even if you do commit sin, forgiveness is free. Admit it, be sorry for it, repair any damage to others you've caused by it, and determine to avoid it in the future. The relationship with God will be restored. You will have chosen wisely.

If, at the time of your death, you are still rejecting God, God will not force you to accept Him. There will be no relationship.You will have chosen poorly.

And I can't think of a single TDR that'd be even remotely appropriate.

Peace Kevin

"KTrick45" wrote in message news:[email]...

[snip an admirable exposition of Scholastic moral theology]

Excellent, Kevin! I'd only add one qualification.

it,

Or do so to the best of your ability. Kevin isn't, I'm sure, seeking to imply that *successfully* putting right any harm is a condition for God's forgiveness: only a sincere and serious attempt.

The particular focus of the ethical discussion in this thread was homosexuality. This topic has come up here before: I made some observations about the importance of distinguishing *being* homosexual from participating in homosexual acts; I won't bore you by repeating them, but if you want to you can see URL: http://deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543025784

The Catholic Church says this: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition.... They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..." [1]

Disclosure: I'm a celibate heterosexual male, if that's important to anyone in weighing my opinions.

Martin.

[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2358. The Catholic Church teaches that intercourse is only ethically sound when between people married to each other, and then when it's not prevented by artificial contraception from any chance of creating new life. See the same book for a better and more nuanced explanation - URL: http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/catholic-books/0003.htm for info on the printed version, and URL: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html for an online version (which sadly lacks really effective indexing).

Martin Sylvester wrote:

Absolutely. Thanks for the clarification.

Peace Kevin

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:28:00 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

He gives us free will, and sets up a standard of obedience to see who will be good servants and who won't.

Don't ask me why, that doesn't interest me particularly, and it's really God's business more than mine.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

aha. so in other words we have free will, we have a choice, but there is only one thing we can choose (do as god says).

it's your business too. you have to obey his rules.

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8kj68u$ot3$[email]...

all,

It's not a matter of free will.

I have absolutely no physical attraction to women whatsoever. It is not possible for me to have sex with a woman, for procreation or any other reason. So if you're taking the position that homosexuality is wrong, then you're also taking the position that God is error-prone.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:05:58 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

That lack of physical attraction is a result of your subconscious rejection of God in other facets of your life.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 13 Jul 2000 01:33:18 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

And I will say that you'd have to be more of a biblical scholar than I am to prove it, but according to my father most people believe the original texts indicate that "in his own image" should be translated to specifically mean that we have free will, unlike the angels and other created beings.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

so when satan rebelled, it was god's fault? (because the angels didn't have free will?)

Kyle wrote:

What I was taught from one of my favorite religion teachers, a.k.a. one of the most beautiful souls to walk the planet earth (bop bop bop...*ahem*...sorry), a.k.a. Sister Susan, was that the text dealing with the creation of humankind as being created in God's image deals specifically with the fact that God is a spiritual Creator who transcends mere human resemblances and that God really is an amalgam of every single person ever created here on planet earth (bop bop bop...*ahem*...sorry again). So it is possible that God could be of all sexual orientations, from homosexual to heterosexual to bisexual to asexual, but that God simply transcends the need to be sexual because God expresses love and intimacy in a way that no mere human can and thusly doesn't need to express any sexuality at all, even though all those orientations (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality) are fully wrapped up inside God. I think the one thing God views as being amoral is intimate (i.e. sexual) love between a human and another species of animal. This faith system which I believe is has allowed me to fully embrace homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality while condemning beastiality because of its amoral and unnatural tendencies.

There was also something else I wanted to type out, but I don't have the time. *pout*

LI

i can't see that there's anything 'unnatural' per se about bestiality - it happens, so it must be natural. the only thing i think is technically wrong with it is that an animal can't give consent.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

It can however (depending on the animal) refuse to give consent, by running away, turning round and attacking you. Anyone that's ever suffered cat claws will know exactly what I mean, and personally I wouldn't want them anywhere near my goolies :)

Phill.

Phill said:

I know dogs better than any other animal; it's been my observation that bitches control the mating process. Even the most timid bitch will snarl at the most alpha dog if he tries to mount her against her will.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

But I thought Eve was only created after Adam had had sex with all the animals and declared that none of them were suitable partners? In other words it is man and not God who isn't keen on bestiality and wants to stick to his own species.

-Shez.

Alli said:

Some animals actually come on to humans. A bitch in heat, in particular, will "present" to her human master, without any urging on the human's part.

Look at it from _her_ perspective. It's her time to mate, and her master is the creature she loves most in the world. She doesn't understand enough to know that she couldn't have puppies by him, or that the attempt would hurt her. Or why he, unlike the alpha male dog she imagines him to be a special variety of, keeps turning her down.

Poor little bitch.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Yes indeed and with some male dogs, they will occasionally try and mount people's legs :)

<Butthead> These dogs are homo-sexuals </Butthead>

Yes that *IS* from an actual episode "Good Credit" I belive, the one where B&B steal Anderson's credit card and use it to buy a load of animals.

Phill.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:16 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

<evil grin> Now you're seeing it. ;)

Not God, but rather their priests, pastors, preachers, or whatever. If they really wanted to know what God thinks, they'd read the not-so-damned book.

Personally, I think there probably is a genetic tendency toward homosexuality... much like there is a genetic tendency toward a violent disposition, or any other human behavior - or should I say animal behavior. It is our ability to go against our biological instincts in favor of our ability to think that makes us human. And *everybody* has some primal urge they must resist in order to function well in society (not that everybody, or even most people, do).

heehee. me (bisexual) and a friend (also bisexual) were trying to convince said friend's girlfriend that she is bisexual the other day. fun. ;)

well who cares what even god thinks? just because he's *supposedly* all-knowing, all-powerful doesn't mean he can't be wrong. he might be the bad guy and satan might be the good guy, for example.

homosexuality doesn't stop one functioning well in society. :p

Alli said:

1) Homosexuality (in the strict sense of the term) most certainly does, unless one is raped. (BISEXUALITY doesn't).

2) Celibacy also does, barring rape or technological intervention. (CHASTITY doesn't).

[A "celibate" doesn't have sex, while one who is "chaste" only has sex with one's spouse].

I agree with your sentiments as regards religious people who hate homosexuals.

What you're describing is a "subconscious choice". I'd argue that there may be a biological _tendency_ one way or another; human behavior is pretty flexible, and hence I don't think it could be purely biologically _programmed_.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

nah. some homosexuals still have kids via the conventional method.

nah. what i described is no more a choice than the development of a mental disorder.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:48:08 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Then they're bisexuals.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Jordan wrote:

Effectively, yes. In part. In Roman Catholic thought:

Celibacy refers to a state of life: being unmarried.

Chastity refers to a moral state: the observation of a particular sexual ethic. That is, reserving sexual activity for a partner to whom one is validly married.

The behavior of not having sex, that is, the chaste behavior of a celibate, is called "continence."

So, Daria's definitely celibate. She's probably continent, though whether that's because of chastity or another reason is open to question.

Peace Kevin

On 10 Jul 2000 15:05:26 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Where? :p

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Yeah me too, and besides if you know some of the religious customs of people you don't go and put your fut in it by say ofering a Moslem an alcoholic drink or something like that :) But yes knowing something about the bible can allow you to play nice nind games with the Whitlesses and the Morons :)

No indeed, your RE teacher probably would not have done, like any history it's often bent to tell the tale leaving in all the 'good' bits and leaving out the bits that the person doing the telling doesn't agree with :)

Phill.

No bad thing. In order to be a good patriot, it's usually essential to also be a bad historian.

On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 02:06:31 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:

Of course who wants to BE a British _subject_?

People who for whatever reason, can't get into the United States.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Christopher Morton wrote:

To be pedantic, we are British _Citizens_.

British _Subject_ only applies to people from places we run Since Hong Kong got given back it's an obsolete term as it doesn't really apply to anybody anymore.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:41:46 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

You've got an hereditary monarch.

You're subjects.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

we're citizens.

missy aggravation wrote:

And I will have to agree with missy aggravation on that.

The monarchy in Great Britain is purely a figurehead monarchy. The Queen of England has little to no legislative power; she cannot rule on the laws of the land nor can she oversee the formation of such laws. Those powers have been delegated to the houses of parliament and the prime minister, who administer law much like the democratic republics of the U.S. and Japan. Only pure monarchies (and there are few of them out there) and administrative territories of constitutional monarchies are considered "subjects".

One thing I'm not sure of is what to call those people being ruled under an autocracy or dictatorship (e.g. Cuba, Iraq). Do you call them "subjects"? "Citizens"? "The Oppressed"? What?

LI

i checked, 'citizen' is what it says on my british passport, so citizens it is.

i *think* (i have no idea really) she has the power to make laws etc, but if she started trying to do anything, i don't think the government would have it.

my mother thinks it's subjects. i have no idea, again. :)

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Reasonable :)

I believe that she staill has the power to disolve parlement, and make govenment re-form with one more how can we say it simpathetic.

Nope me neither :)

Phill.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:26:13 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:

"Production units".

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Christopher Morton wrote:

*snicker*

LI (breaking all kinds of netiquette here...apologies)

here, before all you people, in this thread that probably once had something to do with Daria, I would like to consciously and without remorse reject god, in all forms. thanks for listening.

see you in hell.

andrew

[isn't it now the responsibility of the christians to try to save my soul?]

-----------------------------------------------------------

[email] (and3y) wrote in <104d1e27.d7125683@usw- ex0106-045.remarq.com>:

Yeah but hell is now full of mostly dead, Imps, former sargents, CyberDeamons, Barrons of hell, demons, spider demons etc.... or have you never played doom :)

<Daria> You are now entering hell Please keep your hands and elbowes inside the car </Daria>

satisfied ?

Phill.

Nicole Lee said:

In all countries, but they're more common in America than in most of the English speaking world, because we were colonized by people with a strong evangelical tradition.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:11:33 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

So then you're saying that weight is a measure of a person's worth?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Nicole Lee wrote:

Don't have much time to devote so I'm just gonna go with this post for the moment...

*ahem* "What would people think if they found out I'm a Jesus Freak? What would people do if they find out it's true? I don't really care if they label me a Jesus Freak, There ain't no disguising the truth...." ... dc Talk, "Jesus Freak"

A very good song. A song appropriate for someone like me.

I thought I'd just throw that one out to the general newsgroup-reading public. Heh.

LI (btw -- this is way appropriate to the reason why I have to get off so soon)

the moment...

Eh, nobody's perfect. For a Jesus Freak you sure are quiet about it. No offense. :)

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:06:54 GMT, Hikaru's Boyfriend wrote:

I have that CD. Darn good one too, but they totally peaked with it.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Oh Yeah,

DC Talk, the only reason I have heard of them is because when they came up here they sold THIRTEEN TICKETS for an 8000 seat venue.

And they still did the show.

The Contentious Objector

"Kyl�" wrote in message news:8je90q$5ft$[email]...

stileproject.com 'featured' him a while ago causing him to take down his site, so i guess it couldn't have been or he wouldn't have gotten all uptight.

Wow, and I thought his website was garbage! StileProject is just as bad, Only on the other side of the spectrum.

The Contentious Objector

Contentious Objector wrote (quoting some guy):

haha.. can't see many people agreeing with this. sounds like he needs a good shag (not that anyone'd offer one to someone like that).

anyway, he's taken the site down now, which is a shame.

Did you see the picture of him?

Ugh, about 70% of his face is covered in pustular zits along with a nice white trash salad bowl haircut. I will see if his picture is still in my internet cache.

One of my girl friends said he would be the "Ultimate Conquest" if he wasn't so disgusting

Anyway, Looked at your website, It's terrific.

Contentious Objector

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:33:11 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

So that you'll get the Communications Decency Act (introduced by a Democrat and signed by a Democratic president) and the Defense of Marriage Act?

Democrats may be a lot of things these days, but defenders of individual liberty isn't one of them. When it comes to eliminating the Bill of Rights, they're in lockstep with the Republicans.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Think both Republicans and Democratrs are trash, however you won't find to many evengelical christian theocrats in the democrat party so I guess they are the lesser of two evils at this point in time.

The bottom line is there are a large number of people in the republican party who would love the turn the United States in the Christian version of Iran.

My favorite example of garbage legislation the two cooperated on is the 1995 Anti-Terrorism Bill. Or as I perfer to call it "The Lets Piss On The US Consitution To Get Re-Elected"

The bill has nothing to do with terrorism, all it does is make it near impossible for defendents to get into Federal court to escape the nearly worthless highly political state appelate courts

"Christopher Morton" wrote in message news:[email]...

along

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:53:21 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

Yeah. There are a small minority no worse villians out there than unstable people who use a religion as an excuse to espouse crazy ideas.

Wow, you are a totally paranoid and this sort of attitude disturbs me greatly.

Kyl� The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

In article ,

point

republican

version

Unfortunately, the small minority are sometimes the ones with the loudest voices and the most power. In this case, I'm not too sure if it *is* paranoia. During George Bush's '92 election campaign, then-Republican Pat Buchanan came off sounding very similar to anti-anything-other-than-Christianity bigot. (For excerpts, check out Al Franken's political satire, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations.")

Other backers of the Republican Party include Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition which, among other things, is anti-gay.

But if you want a really non-paranoid reason to bash Republicans, I've got a few words for you. Iran-Contra affair. Watergate. Desert Storm. Sound familiar? They don't have a very good track record of keeping us out of wars that we could avoid, not selling nukes to Middle-Eastern countries, and screwing with our elections, do they?

Hikaru's Boyfriend said:

Pat Buchanan isn't a Republican any more. The reason why is that most of the Republican Party rejected him, _specifically_ for his bigotry.

Um, two were political scandals, one was a victorious military campaign that the vast majority of Americans are proud of waging. I can point to _both_ scandals and military victories under Democrats, too. What's your point?

Like Korea and Vietnam?

??? - When did either Democrats OR Republicans do that?

Paid any attention to the Clinton scandals of the last decade?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

In article , "Contentious Objector" wrote:

point

Why vote for either of them? I don't know about you, but I'm voting for Nader and the Green Party. No Religious Right personage is going to come within a ten foot pole of them, since Jello Biafra, one of their most vicious opponents, is a member.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:27:59 GMT, Hikaru's Boyfriend wrote:

Not that I know that much about politics in the first place.. but I watched a bit of C-SPAN yesterday (I know I know.. you're asking "who the hell watches C-SPAN?" I was channel surfing, and it just caught my eye) and after laughing at the British House of Commons meeting (Gawd.. it's HILARIOUS stuff.. I can't believe stuff like that goes on in these meetings!!) they showed the Green Party National Convention up at Denver. Nader was giving a speech, and a lot of what he said made sense, even if I didn't entirely agree.. What *did* catch my eye though were the number of long-haired post hippies there.. and I thought "Wow.. Did I just time-travel back to the 60s?" And then there were all these cool sunflowers everywhere.. It was such a refreshing view after seeing all the corporate cookie-cutter stuff that Gore and Bush campaigns always seem to have. I'm not really politically inclined or anything.. I just thought it was nice to see something different.

ps: Do you UK folks ever watch those British House of Commons meetings? Man.. I don't think I've laughed so hard at a political conference before! It was sooo wacky.. People were tossing back and forth insults, and there was a really intense "Us vs. Them" rivalry that was just hilarious to watch. I especially loved it when people would randomly stand up and sit down after a person's comments.. and how Tony Blair would grab this huge book and stand up and sit down all the time. I don't know.. it just seemed so much like a pupper show!

I don't think I've ever enjoyed C-SPAN that much before!

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"I'm the master of the zing zang zoom!" -- Conan O'Brien

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

In article ,

the

for

Yeah, I watch them, too. Funniest stuff on TV.

If you want real entertainment watch CPAC, The Canadian version of C-SPAN, If you think your house of lords is boring you should see the Canadian one. I don't think anything of signifigance has happened in the Canadian upper house since 1982 when the Queen signed the Canadian Constitution into Law.

However the Canadian Parlement is the riot, the Speaker might as well be Jerry Springer. There is swearing, personal attacks, nudity, throwing chairs, there is one Quebec MP who even stole several chairs from the House of Commons. and sold them on eBay

It's almost worth taking Canadian Citizenship just for the chance to be elected to Parlement to watch the fighting first hand.

A few years ago a Reform MP ran to the middle of the house, grabbed the mace and tried to attack the govonor general with it.

Even more recently several people have tried to drive trucks into the parlement buildings.

Ahh, Canada

God I am going to miss this place

"Nicole Lee" wrote in message news:[email]...

Asimov

strike.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:04:23 GMT, "Contentious Objector" wrote:

For all his faults, at least Chretian was willing to 'take things outside...'

"Nicole Lee" wrote in message news:[email]...

Not *entirely* random behaviour! Members stand (or half-rise from their seat) to indicate that they wish to speak: then the Speaker chooses which of them gets to. Then the others sit down.

I imagine that may have been Prime Minister's Question Time, when ordinary MPs get to question the Prime Minister, supposedly to hold him to account to the House.

It's nice to know the Mother of Modern[1] Democracies has such an uplifting effect! <smirk>

Some of this might interest you: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/fs52.pdf

Martin.

PS If there are any closet Lara Croft fans lurking here, you might be interested in my first ever eBay auction! http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=366971290

[1] The qualification is there to show that I do know that Greece had a form of democracy many centuries before England!

Why not de-lurk fully? *smiles* Warning...succotash ahead....

Martin Sylvester wrote:

Yeah, it is labelled as "Prime Minister Question Time" in the C-SPAN programming listing. I've been able to see quite a few of those and those *are* the most compelling moments of televised politics on American TV. I tried to watch some footage of the US House of Representatives (the US version of the House of Commons) and it was *so* boring...just a bunch of people standing (sometimes next to graphical charts) and talking the viewer's ears off. And *NO* one, I mean *NO* one, talks out of turn...with the Question Time I see *TONS* of people talking out of turn all the time. I just wish I wasn't so wiped out on Sunday nights because I would *love* to start watching Question Time again. Question: Does the House of Commons act like this *all* the time or just during this occasion? Because I think I might've found yet another good reason to try to move to England...LOL...

Oh yes, one more thing...going back to the topic...I don't see myself as a hippie-dippy type...I've never seen myself as a hippie-dippy type...in fact I think that hippies are borderline mental cases and need serious institutionalizing...so the Green Party's been out of the question for me since I first found out what the Green Party was. The Reform Party's been out of the question since they chose that idiot xenophobe Pat Buchanan. The Republican Party's out of the question because I do *not* want a country led by George W. Bush, even if I *am* pro-death penalty and somewhat conservative. The Democratic Party...ummm, Al Gore? I'll have to wait and see.

Yeesh...the choices...they reek. I think I'll go for what's behind door number five...not even Tom Green could be as bad as most of the choices for this election.

LI

Lady Interference wrote:

I'm afraid not. If you show up to the House of Commons at some random time during the day you'll most likely see about 3 MP's on each side with one of the reading out something dull. Question Time is twice a week and you have to book tickets for the public gallery in advance because it's entertainment value makes it so popular.

They sit well into the night and often take votes at 10pm so that can be a good time. On one occasion it did make an mildly entertaining interlude when I was drinking with friends in the Red Lion pub in Parliament Square.

And politicians wonder why nobody bothers voting any more.... Yes the main chamber of the House of Commons is basically just a place for MPs to spout crap whilst having to obey antique conventions. Theoretically this is where legislation is debated, but although some MPs have occasionally been known to make a good speech, "debate" it isn't, since no-one would dream of conceding a point made by a political rival, so the outcome of a debate is generally known at the outset - the largest political party will win it when it comes to a vote.

The real political work is done by what are known as Select Committees - small groups of MPs who specialise in particular subjects and discuss proposed legislation in detail, and review the performance of government ministers. It's in these committees that the real business of horse-trading and refining proposed legislation goes on, and where ministers can be cross-examined and forced to give straight answers instead of being allowed to waffle a load of crap like they would from the Despatch Box in the House.

Some of the committees do get televised too, not usually something that could be described as gripping TV, but certainly more informative than staged debates, and there has been some pressure to increase the TV coverage of committees and reduce the coverage of the debating chamber. However the media of course prefer the drama of politicians getting on their high horses and making snide comments about each other, so nothing much changes.

-Shez.

Nicole Lee wrote:

It gets better, if an MP want's to make a point of order to the Speaker he or she, has to wave a top hat in the air. They've got one lying about somewhere for them to use.

But I guess you must have been watching Prime Ministers question time. This is pretty much irrelevant, it's mainly about the opposition trying to make the PM look a complete idiot and get on the evening news.

But then the house of Commons doesn't amount to much now. The governments massive majority means debate doesn't matter because the outcome of the vote is never in doubt. The House of Lords usually usually sees better informed and higher quality debate. People there actually seem to pay attention to what others are saying rather then just reading out whatever preprpareded soundbite amounts to government policy this week.

In article , Michel Morton writes

They dropped the use of the hat about three years ago, at the same time as PMQs were switched from two 15 minute sessions on Tuesday and Thursday to one 30 minute session on Wednesday.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:27:59 GMT, Hikaru's Boyfriend wrote:

Socialist is socialist - left, right or green. Each wants what's mine to use for the betterment of all. The right wants my freedom to save my soul, the left wants my money to save the poor, the greens want my land to save the planet. Who's in it for me? The Libertarians.

The situation in the UK is similar. Years ago the tories passed an anti-terrorism act, and Labour vowed to get rid of it as it infringed civil liberties such as allowing people to be arrested and held secretly for up to seven days before their lawyer or family could be informed. Now possibly this sort of act might be justifiable if it were the only way of catching terrorists, but as I understand it, of the many terrorists who have been convicted since the law was passed, not a single conviction depended on the provisions of the anti-terror act, in other words it did precisely zero to help combat terrorism.

Since they came to power, Labour have performed a U-turn and decided to keep the act, and in fact I heard recently that they've decided to extend the definition of "terrorism" to include acts of civil disobedience or direct action, in other words groups like Greenpeace could soon find themselves classed as terrorists in the UK. It's all Very Sinister.

-Shez.

I'm semi-obsessed with all things terrorism-related, so of course I had to add my own $0.02 to this...

Shez wrote:

That would be something to worry about, yes. If any anti-terrorist legislation is to be passed in the United States or in the UK (the two countries most often targeted by terrorists), it should be effective so as to properly deal with the terrorist issue. In the United States, I do believe there has been some effective anti-terrorist legislation enacted, but as terrorism has existed long before such laws have been enacted and terrorists often change their tactics on a regular basis, it's going to take awhile for it to be fully effective. The US government's definition of terrorism is simple and clear-cut..."premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (source: report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999", dated 05/01/00, introduction; http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/intro.html) If the UK is to enact proper anti-terrorism legislation, the UK government should make the definition of terrorism concise, so that innocent organizations such as any civil rights organization won't be wrongfully targeted. As it stands, the UK legislation could easily target any organization similar to Dr. Martin Luther King's civil rights movement and consider it terrorism, even though said organization was/is very peaceful and non-violent.

The UK does need anti-terrorism legislation, as does the US. Both countries have suffered enough casulaties and loss to warrant this action. However, I do not think the current UK definition of "terrorism" is sufficient and I think they really need to go back and redefine the term so that innocent groups don't become targets of this effort.

LI (going back into lurk mode)

I'm not convinced we do need legislation. Since acts of terror (murder, criminal damage, threats, extortion, etc) are already illegal it's not clear to me what is left to legislate against (except in the general curtailing of civil liberties department). Membership of known terrorist organisations can be (and has been) made illegal, but even here I would have thought that the existing laws on conspiracy to commit crimes would have sufficed.

It seems to me the main purpose of such laws is to give politicians a piece of the action by making it look like they are doing something about terrorism, whereas really it's the job of the police and other relevant agencies to tackle it by investigating violent crimes and prosecuting those who have committed them.

Actually this reminds me of the British approach to tennis. To create world class players would require investing large sums of money in a training infrastructure from school age upwards. But instead the tennis establishment has simply used its wildcard places to grant 8 UK players automatic entry into this week's Wimbledon tournament. This has the effect of making it *look* like we must have some decent players, since there they are, playing at the world's greatest tennis tournament! But in reality simply writing people's names on a draw sheet doesn't contribute in any shape or form to making them into top class tennis players. Similarly, passing legislation against terrorism is simply a way of making it look like you're doing something, which is cheaper and glossier than actually doing something. It's the old style v. substance argument, and as we all know, the modern way is always to go for style, and to hell with the substance.

-Shez.

Lady Interference said:

IMHO, America can most effectively deal with terrorism by going after the states which shelter, sponsor, and in some cases outright dispatch the terrorists. Any domestic legislation can at best only make the job of the terrorists slightly mroe difficult; it can't strike at the root of the problem.

Absolutely. Same goes here, too.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Contentious Objector said:

80 million of *what?* Religious rightists, or simply Republicans?

(Most "Republicans" are not "religious rightists", though the religious wing is an influential minority).

Sincerely Yours, Jordan