bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 01 Feb 2007 11:19:38 From: donquijote1954 Subject: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles. And how about those who --like me-- want to ride a bike, but find there's no safe place for it. It's a frightful jungle out there, you know. So we must sit back and swallow in disgust reports like this that blame all humans. But I say to these so called experts: Hey guys, it's not "humans," it's the lions of the jungle that ride SUVs to satisfy their Napoleonic complex, and it's those who can change things, but rather decide to spend a fortune in extravagant projects. Well, this is Napoleon himself... http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/Q/bush_napoleon.jpg (Bush and Napoleon... http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04102003.html) HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite words... Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as the quick way out of poverty..." And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle -- to the effect of exploring life in other planets... *** PARIS - Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much- awaited international report will say that global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change conference said. Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed- door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday. Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is human-caused. The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance. The report is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote THE BANANA REVOLUTION ;) http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40   Date: 09 Feb 2007 13:49:30 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Only the revolution can save the planet On Feb 7, 2:26 pm, "no spam" <n...@spam.net > wrote: > > You said best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming > > soon)... > > > WORLD REVOLUTION > > "The World Revolution is an idea for a new, global activist social > > movement for progressive social change. It aims to resolve in a > > <stuff cut> > > If it does come you will find out what every other 'winner' of a 'peoples > revolution' has found. Power flows from the barrel of a gun and those with > the power (i.e. guns) will suddenly not be so friendly. I don't think most > of the supporters Castro thought he was going to take away all the guns they > used to win their freedom and use them to keep himself in power. True. That's why the next revolution must do without the Castros and Chavezes (the caudillos), and, of course, must do away with the guns, just use a banana. Like in Banana Revolution... http://webspawner.com/ users/bananarevolution This is a thought from it... "We don't need lions or violent monkeys that become lions"   Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:33:46 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam > wrote: > Bill Baka wrote: > > The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and > > design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift > > to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under > > the hood, which in turn sells cars. > > I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old > car with the 5-speed manual transmission. > > I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration > - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects > - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few > advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic. > > That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to > drink my coffee between shifts. Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes should be all right though.     Date: 09 Feb 2007 20:10:41 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote: >> Bill Baka wrote: >>> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and >>> design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift >>> to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under >>> the hood, which in turn sells cars. >> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old >> car with the 5-speed manual transmission. >> >> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration >> - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects >> - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few >> advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic. >> >> That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to >> drink my coffee between shifts. > > Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and > dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to drive > stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes should be > all right though. > That's a thought, but then my daughter would never drive since she basically can't walk and chew gum at the same time. She is fine with an automagic tranny though. My stepdaughter (source of grandkids) makes up for it by trying to get rubber shifting to third gear. I would prefer to ride with my real daughter than my maniac stepdaughter. For myself I like being in control of what gear I want to ride in, and if I want to be in 5th at 25 MPH, I do it. The car makes 25 MPH with no trouble except that I have to down shift to accelerate. The automatic KIA flat ass won't hit top gear and converter lock up until about 45 MPH so it runs about 2,000 RPM when it could be maybe 1,400. I like shifting. Bill Baka     Date: 09 Feb 2007 13:53:37 From: dgk Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike On 9 Feb 2007 08:33:46 -0800, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote: >On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote: >> Bill Baka wrote: >> > The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and >> > design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift >> > to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under >> > the hood, which in turn sells cars. >> >> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old >> car with the 5-speed manual transmission. >> >> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration >> - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects >> - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few >> advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic. >> >> That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to >> drink my coffee between shifts. > >Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and >dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to drive >stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes should be >all right though. I've always preferred manual but they really are impractical in the big city. Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big getaway with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my mountain bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car home. My next car was automatic.       Date: 09 Feb 2007 20:13:28 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike dgk wrote: > On 9 Feb 2007 08:33:46 -0800, "donquijote1954" > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote: >>> Bill Baka wrote: >>>> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and >>>> design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift >>>> to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under >>>> the hood, which in turn sells cars. >>> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old >>> car with the 5-speed manual transmission. >>> >>> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration >>> - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects >>> - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few >>> advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic. >>> >>> That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to >>> drink my coffee between shifts. >> Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and >> dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to drive >> stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes should be >> all right though. > > I've always preferred manual but they really are impractical in the > big city. Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big > getaway with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my mountain > bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car home. My > next car was automatic. Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't want to have a stick. Bill Baka         Date: 10 Feb 2007 01:06:09 From: no spam Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike > Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top of > a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can roll > back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't want > to have a stick. You just need to know how to drive one. You work the clutch with the left foot, the brake with the toe or your right. When you want to take off you use the heel of your right foot to press the accelerator as you let off the clutch. I've taken off in a fully loaded grain truck w/o rolling back an inch. It is a pain when you have to do it a lot but you get used to it.         Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:42:46 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >, Bill Baka wrote: > Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top > of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can > roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't > want to have a stick. After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not stop 2 inches behind someone ;)           Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:05:36 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Brent P wrote: > In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote: > >> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top >> of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can >> roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't >> want to have a stick. > > After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not > stop 2 inches behind someone ;) > > Maybe that counts as a rear end collision and the other guy pays for being that stupid. I would be on the sidewalk if I was cycling there, and I don't even want to think about how fast a downhill could be on pavement. I have nearly fried a cars brakes and don't know if bicycle brakes would cook either(and--or??). Bill Baka             Date: 09 Feb 2007 19:19:51 From: Brent P Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike In article <BT8zh.3837$4H1.423@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net >, Bill Baka wrote: > Brent P wrote: >> In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote: >> >>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top >>> of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can >>> roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't >>> want to have a stick. >> >> After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not >> stop 2 inches behind someone ;) > Maybe that counts as a rear end collision and the other guy pays for > being that stupid. I would be on the sidewalk if I was cycling there, > and I don't even want to think about how fast a downhill could be on > pavement. I have nearly fried a cars brakes and don't know if bicycle > brakes would cook either(and--or??). The brakes on my Giant road bike did fine going down the bluff in WI to the Mississippi river. Also had no problem with the rental road bike riding down from Iao Needle on Maui. Now going up that bluff on the giant, that did do something to the bike ;) Of course I'm a flatlander here in IL, so those are about the biggest downhills I've ever had to deal with. I would doubt an urban hill would be worse, but all I've seen of San-Fran in person was from the air and the airport, so I wouldn't know how bad the hills there are.               Date: 10 Feb 2007 08:45:59 From: The Real Bev Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Brent P wrote: > Of course I'm a flatlander here in IL, so those are about the biggest > downhills I've ever had to deal with. I would doubt an urban hill would > be worse, but all I've seen of San-Fran in person was from the air and the > airport, so I wouldn't know how bad the hills there are. I drove down Lombard Street in the van. Manual brakes and steering, auto trans in low. I was terrified that my right leg would give out before we got to the bottom and my right leg was weak for the next day or so. Google earth doesn't do it justice. -- Cheers, Bev =================================== New sig on order, watch this space.               Date: 10 Feb 2007 01:54:10 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Brent P wrote: > In article <BT8zh.3837$4H1.423@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >>> In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote: >>> >>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top >>>> of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can >>>> roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't >>>> want to have a stick. >>> After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not >>> stop 2 inches behind someone ;) > > >> Maybe that counts as a rear end collision and the other guy pays for >> being that stupid. I would be on the sidewalk if I was cycling there, >> and I don't even want to think about how fast a downhill could be on >> pavement. I have nearly fried a cars brakes and don't know if bicycle >> brakes would cook either(and--or??). > > The brakes on my Giant road bike did fine going down the bluff in WI to > the Mississippi river. Also had no problem with the rental road bike > riding down from Iao Needle on Maui. Now going up that bluff on the > giant, that did do something to the bike ;) > > Of course I'm a flatlander here in IL, so those are about the biggest > downhills I've ever had to deal with. I would doubt an urban hill would > be worse, but all I've seen of San-Fran in person was from the air and the > airport, so I wouldn't know how bad the hills there are. > > I was born in Chicago so I know how hard it is to find a hill, any hill. There have been bluffs that I know were over 10% but lucky for me they were pretty straight. There is one boat ramp/road about 15 miles into the mountains (foothills) that runs about 15--20%. The bottom is a boat launch and I almost went into the water. Coming back up was so steep it was a walker. It might have been ridable by a total masochist but even walking and dragging a bike was painful. Gotta love California and it's geographical diversity. Bill Baka         Date: 10 Feb 2007 09:05:20 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > dgk wrote: >> On 9 Feb 2007 08:33:46 -0800, "donquijote1954" >> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote: >>>> Bill Baka wrote: >>>>> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up >>>>> and design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to >>>>> downshift to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a >>>>> sense of power under the hood, which in turn sells cars. >>>> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my >>>> old car with the 5-speed manual transmission. >>>> >>>> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more >>>> acceleration - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many >>>> respects - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers >>>> me few advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop >>>> and go traffic. That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned >>>> to drink my coffee between shifts. >>> Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and >>> dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to >>> drive stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes >>> should be all right though. >> >> I've always preferred manual but they really are impractical in the >> big city. Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big >> getaway with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my >> mountain bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car >> home. My next car was automatic. > > Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the > top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you > can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where > I don't want to have a stick. Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always.           Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:19:42 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Rod Speed wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you >> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where >> I don't want to have a stick. > > Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. > > Should I even bother with assholes? Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a stick in S.F.??? Try it,then bitch about it. It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, while wearing out the release mechanism. Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. Reply to jerk mode off. Bill Baka             Date: 10 Feb 2007 10:46:31 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake >>> you can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place >>> where I don't want to have a stick. >> >> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. > Should I even bother with assholes? Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a stick in S.F.??? But have done it fine in places much worse than that thanks. > Try it, Been doing that since before you were even born thanks. In grossly underpowered cars too. > then bitch about it. Nothing to bitch about. > It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the > release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, Completely routine for anyone but a complete incompetant. > while wearing out the release mechanism. Just another pig ignorant fantasy. Never ever wore out any of mine. > Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. > Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. SF aint the only place that hilly, fuckwit.               Date: 10 Feb 2007 01:12:56 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Rod Speed wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> Rod Speed wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake >>>> you can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place >>>> where I don't want to have a stick. >>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. > >> Should I even bother with assholes? > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. That line seems to be YOUR standard come back. > >> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a stick in S.F.??? > > But have done it fine in places much worse than that thanks. Gram boo boo. > >> Try it, > > Been doing that since before you were even born thanks. You would have to be 80 for that to be true. I'm a senior, not a junior. > > In grossly underpowered cars too. > >> then bitch about it. > > Nothing to bitch about. Getting beat at the stoplight uphill drag races is "bitch about" fodder. > >> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the >> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, > > Completely routine for anyone but a complete incompetant. I can do it but prefer not to. I tend to double clutch when I downshift. Do you even know what that is? I do it on a motorcycle too. > >> while wearing out the release mechanism. > > Just another pig ignorant fantasy. Never ever wore out any of mine. Lucky turd then, aren't you. (:-) > >> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. > >> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. > > SF aint the only place that hilly, fuckwit. L.A. is fun too, like driving Laurel Canyon road in the dark on a motorcycle. Been there, done that, after a 6 pack no less. 1969. I forget what else I did that year, but damn, was it fun. Bill Baka > >                 Date: 10 Feb 2007 12:55:06 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote >>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top of a hill and unless >>>>> you have a hand operated emergency brake you can roll back and get the car behind you. That's >>>>> the one place where I don't want to have a stick. >>>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. >>> Should I even bother with assholes? >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > That line seems to be YOUR standard come back. Only with the pathetic excuses for bullshit artists like you. >>> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a stick in S.F.??? >> But have done it fine in places much worse than that thanks. > Gram boo boo. Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland. >>> Try it, >> Been doing that since before you were even born thanks. > You would have to be 80 for that to be true. I'm a senior, not a junior. >> In grossly underpowered cars too. >>> then bitch about it. >> Nothing to bitch about. > Getting beat at the stoplight uphill drag races is "bitch about" fodder. Not for anyone with a clue. >>> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the >>> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, >> Completely routine for anyone but a complete incompetant. > I can do it but prefer not to. You are lying now or you were lying originally. Cant have it both ways. > I tend to double clutch when I downshift. Do you even know what that is? Corse I do. > I do it on a motorcycle too. Well whoopy fucking do. Have this funky leather medal. If you're a really good boy we might even spray it with gold paint if you stop boasting. >>> while wearing out the release mechanism. >> Just another pig ignorant fantasy. Never ever wore out any of mine. > Lucky turd then, aren't you. (:-) Nope, not a shred of luck involved. >>> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. >>> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. >> SF aint the only place that hilly, fuckwit. > L.A. is fun too, So are any hilly areas. > like driving Laurel Canyon road in the dark on a motorcycle. Been there, done that, after a 6 pack > no less. 1969. > I forget what else I did that year, but damn, was it fun. Soorree, you have flunked on the gold paint.             Date: 09 Feb 2007 23:08:07 From: George Grapman Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Bill Baka wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you >>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where >>> I don't want to have a stick. >> >> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. >> > Should I even bother with assholes? > Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a > stick in S.F.??? > Try it,then bitch about it. > It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the > release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, > while wearing out the release mechanism. > > Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. > > Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. > > Reply to jerk mode off. > > Bill Baka > It is doable but requires thinking and common sense. The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways. -- To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell               Date: 10 Feb 2007 10:47:26 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net > wrote: > Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake >>>> you can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place >>>> where I don't want to have a stick. >>> >>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. >>> >> Should I even bother with assholes? >> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a >> stick in S.F.??? >> Try it,then bitch about it. >> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the >> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, >> while wearing out the release mechanism. >> >> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. >> >> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. >> >> Reply to jerk mode off. > It is doable but requires thinking and common sense. And thats why that clown cant manage it. > The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways. And the lower purchase price too.               Date: 09 Feb 2007 15:19:04 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike George Grapman wrote: > Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you >>>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where >>>> I don't want to have a stick. >>> >>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. >>> >> Should I even bother with assholes? >> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a >> stick in S.F.??? >> Try it,then bitch about it. >> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the >> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, >> while wearing out the release mechanism. >> >> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. >> >> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. >> >> Reply to jerk mode off. >> >> Bill Baka >> > > It is doable but requires thinking and common sense. > The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways. > I have done it and my favorite cars for doing it were VWs and Renaults, both of which had hand operated emergency brakes. One time with an American car and a foot brake and I swore off sticks. There was an old skit by Cheech and Chong (I think) about losing it on one of those famous hills and rolling backwards into the bay. That thought was in my head when I came to those absurd stop signs where you had to start up again on a 15% or greater hill. What really got me was that the street you were stopping for was dead level, then uphill to the next stop sign. I wonder if it is feasible for a sane person to ride a bicycle there without getting fried by all the ups and downs. I am on the bicycles group, after all. Bill Baka                 Date: 09 Feb 2007 15:26:35 From: George Grapman Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Bill Baka wrote: > George Grapman wrote: >> Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you >>>>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where >>>>> I don't want to have a stick. >>>> >>>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. >>>> >>> Should I even bother with assholes? >>> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a >>> stick in S.F.??? >>> Try it,then bitch about it. >>> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the >>> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas, >>> while wearing out the release mechanism. >>> >>> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. >>> >>> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. >>> >>> Reply to jerk mode off. >>> >>> Bill Baka >>> >> >> It is doable but requires thinking and common sense. >> The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways. >> > I have done it and my favorite cars for doing it were VWs and Renaults, > both of which had hand operated emergency brakes. One time with an > American car and a foot brake and I swore off sticks. There was an old > skit by Cheech and Chong (I think) about losing it on one of those > famous hills and rolling backwards into the bay. That thought was in my > head when I came to those absurd stop signs where you had to start up > again on a 15% or greater hill. What really got me was that the street > you were stopping for was dead level, then uphill to the next stop sign. > I wonder if it is feasible for a sane person to ride a bicycle there > without getting fried by all the ups and downs. > > I am on the bicycles group, after all. > Bill Baka A few times my clutch was on its last legs and I needed to wait a few weeks before replacing it. I learned that the shortest distance between to points i not always a straight line. I had one route that worked fine except for a one block hill. Had to time it so as soon as the light turned green I could go up the hill and make a right turn. A few times a car pulling out of a driveway foiled my plan. Once I had to go to San Rafael and had to do Bay Bridge/Richmond Bridge. -- To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell                   Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:02:49 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike George Grapman wrote: > Bill Baka wrote: >> George Grapman wrote: >>> Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >>>>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you >>>>>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where >>>>>> I don't want to have a stick. >>>>> >>>>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. >>>>> >>>> Should I even bother with assholes? >>>> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a >>>> stick in S.F.??? >>>> Try it,then bitch about it. >>>> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the >>>> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it >>>> gas, while wearing out the release mechanism. >>>> >>>> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left. >>>> >>>> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean. >>>> >>>> Reply to jerk mode off. >>>> >>>> Bill Baka >>>> >>> >>> It is doable but requires thinking and common sense. >>> The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways. >>> >> I have done it and my favorite cars for doing it were VWs and >> Renaults, both of which had hand operated emergency brakes. One time >> with an American car and a foot brake and I swore off sticks. There >> was an old skit by Cheech and Chong (I think) about losing it on one >> of those famous hills and rolling backwards into the bay. That thought >> was in my head when I came to those absurd stop signs where you had to >> start up again on a 15% or greater hill. What really got me was that >> the street you were stopping for was dead level, then uphill to the >> next stop sign. >> I wonder if it is feasible for a sane person to ride a bicycle there >> without getting fried by all the ups and downs. >> >> I am on the bicycles group, after all. >> Bill Baka > > A few times my clutch was on its last legs and I needed to wait a few > weeks before replacing it. I learned that the shortest distance between > to points i not always a straight line. > I had one route that worked fine except for a one block hill. Had to > time it so as soon as the light turned green I could go up the hill and > make a right turn. A few times a car pulling out of a driveway foiled > my plan. > Once I had to go to San Rafael and had to do Bay Bridge/Richmond Bridge. > > Yeah, Been there, done that. It's amazing how a little thing can get you detoured waaay off your intended path. Not terrible with a car except for the gas to do it these days. On a bike it might be a sensible thing to do for the "scenery". The thing you learn on a bike is "Pay attention". Bill Baka           Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:13:50 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Rod Speed wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> dgk wrote: >>> On 9 Feb 2007 08:33:46 -0800, "donquijote1954" >>> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote: >>>>> Bill Baka wrote: >>>>>> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up >>>>>> and design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to >>>>>> downshift to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a >>>>>> sense of power under the hood, which in turn sells cars. >>>>> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my >>>>> old car with the 5-speed manual transmission. >>>>> >>>>> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more >>>>> acceleration - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many >>>>> respects - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers >>>>> me few advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop >>>>> and go traffic. That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned >>>>> to drink my coffee between shifts. >>>> Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and >>>> dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to >>>> drive stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes >>>> should be all right though. >>> I've always preferred manual but they really are impractical in the >>> big city. Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big >>> getaway with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my >>> mountain bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car >>> home. My next car was automatic. >> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the >> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you >> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where >> I don't want to have a stick. > > Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always. > >       Date: 10 Feb 2007 06:13:53 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote: > On 9 Feb 2007 08:33:46 -0800, "donquijote1954" > <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote: >>> Bill Baka wrote: >>>> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and >>>> design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to >>>> downshift to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a >>>> sense of power under the hood, which in turn sells cars. >>> >>> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my >>> old car with the 5-speed manual transmission. >>> >>> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more >>> acceleration >>> - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many >>> respects >>> - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me >>> few advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and >>> go traffic. >>> >>> That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned >>> to drink my coffee between shifts. >> >> Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and >> dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to >> drive stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes >> should be all right though. > I've always preferred manual Me too. > but they really are impractical in the big city. Nope. > Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big getaway > with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my mountain > bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car home. > My next car was automatic. Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event.         Date: 09 Feb 2007 15:41:50 From: dgk Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:13:53 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big getaway >> with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my mountain >> bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car home. >> My next car was automatic. > >Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event. > Yes, true, but the example holds anyway. I've been known to lend my car to family and friends. I really can't do that with a manual. On the other hand, if we did outlaw automatics (and what true conservative would allow such a governmental intrusion on the free ket), everyone would be able to drive it. When I was a kid I worked as a delivery boy for a drug store (talk about kids in a candy shop) and drove an old VB bug. You needed the clutch to get into first, but from there on it was optional.           Date: 10 Feb 2007 09:04:36 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big getaway >>> with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my >>> mountain bike). Only one person out of those 50 could >>> drive my car home. My next car was automatic. >> Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event. > Yes, true, but the example holds anyway. Like hell it does. > I've been known to lend my car to family and friends. > I really can't do that with a manual. Yes, if you lend your car out it makes sense to have an automatic. Nothing like your original silly stuff. > On the other hand, if we did outlaw automatics (and what > true conservative would allow such a governmental intrusion > on the free ket), everyone would be able to drive it. Pathetic, really. > When I was a kid I worked as a delivery boy for a drug store (talk > about kids in a candy shop) and drove an old VB bug. You needed > the clutch to get into first, but from there on it was optional. Irrelevant to what is being discussed.         Date: 09 Feb 2007 15:38:51 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:13:53 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com > wrote: > >Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event. Perhaps, but bad knees aren't rare. Working a clutch is a problem for many people, even those that know how to use a stick. FWIW, some people said the same thing when they started to use synchros. (And crash boxes can be done with a bad left knee.) Today it takes a really good driver to outperform a good four or five speed, and anyone sipping coffee between shifts isn't that person. It takes a pretty good driver when you have paddle shifters. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...           Date: 09 Feb 2007 14:38:22 From: The Real Bev Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Curtis L. Russell wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:13:53 +1100, "Rod Speed" wrote: > >> Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event. > > Perhaps, but bad knees aren't rare. Working a clutch is a problem for > many people, even those that know how to use a stick. Example: the weeks after childbirth With STITCHES. If you plan on driving a car for a long time, some sort of injury that makes using a clutch problematic, if not agonizing, is almost inevitable. -- Cheers, Bev =================================== New sig on order, watch this space.           Date: 10 Feb 2007 09:01:53 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Whoever is not fit to drive stick, should ride a bike Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote > I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big getaway > with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my mountain > bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car home. > My next car was automatic. >> Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event. > Perhaps, No perhaps about it. > but bad knees aren't rare. Yes, buying an automatic because your knee isnt up to it makes a lot of sense. Nothing like his original tho. > Working a clutch is a problem for many people, > even those that know how to use a stick. Bugger all actually. > FWIW, some people said the same thing when they started to use > synchros. (And crash boxes can be done with a bad left knee.) > Today it takes a really good driver to outperform a good four or five > speed, and anyone sipping coffee between shifts isn't that person. > It takes a pretty good driver when you have paddle shifters. Irrelevant to what was being discussed.   Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:51:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way On Feb 5, 12:26 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > > mind waiting in line for a light to change so much as they do a slow > > vehicle blocking them, much worse still one that sometimes gets in their > > way but also passes by them when they are standing still in line waiting > > for the light to change! > > Yea, those morons should not be allowed to drive either. Cyclists feed peanuts to the dinosaur. Stupid drivers feed him juicy stake. Guess who gets preferential treatment...   Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:46:22 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do you see the connection b/ Global Warming and Armageddon? On Feb 5, 12:36 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>> So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are > >>> causing Armageddon! > >> That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the > >> pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van > >> (SUV) to carry them all over the place. > > > I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we > > know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at > > work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs... > > > HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED > > > One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning > > the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into > > temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek... > > Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a > > brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the > > Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god... > > > And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad > > that He declared war against the Devil... > > So now Earth is a war zone???- Hide quoted text - Not only that. It's a jungle!!! The Devil is disguised as God creating wars left and right. And the sheep who follow God are therefore following the Devil! What a confusing world this is. I think the animals of the Kalahari know everything about it. And cylists know it too. Never trust the predator!   Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:34:10 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way On Feb 4, 7:50 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > A 2 ft wide bicycle fits just fine no matter how narrow the lane. A > bicycle driver need only ride right in the center of the lane. The roads > are full of slow vehicles such as stopped busses, motor vehicles > completely stopped at stop lights, parked delivery vehicles, front > loaders, bicycles, etc. Motorists can deal with it. > > Wayne Great idea, but not what the dinosaur wants. He dreams of coming back, like in this children book... "If Dinosaurs Came Back : Bernard Most A young boy dreams of an easier life for himself and others through the use of dinosaurs for transportation." I guess this a popupar book among SUV drivers. Bikes must fend for themselves.   Date: 06 Feb 2007 09:16:48 From: donquijote1954 Subject: the bicycle is the smart way to go On Feb 5, 3:16 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com > wrote: > Certainly much of the forests in western europe are now gone, > and western europe manages fine without them anyway. Depends where you cut trees down. Europe is a wet climate but in most other places you get desertification... "Current desertification is taking place much faster worldwide than historically and usually arises from the demands of increased populations that settle on the land in order to grow crops and graze animals." (awesome picture) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification Well, here in America you probably build malls and parking lots to accomodate the SUVs for the happy consumers of products made in China. > > What are we willing to do to mitigate that possibility? > > It makes absolutely no sense to cripple the world's economys > for something that isnt going to happen like that mindless claim > about 'possible destruction of human existence' We cripple Big Oil and promote Natural Capitalism, what's the big deal about it? "Natural Capitalism is so informative and provocative-and so unfashionably optimistic about the future of the planet-that I wonder why everyone in public life is not reading it and arguing over the implications. The President did volunteer a nice plug for the book when it came out a few months ago, but it has yet to be reviewed by virtually any leading publication. Literary culture doesn't grasp the high drama of industrial engineering. Newspaper editors, like other Americans, are transfixed by business stories about moguls and supermoguls from this gilded age and the previous one. "The book will find its audience, regardless. It is that important. The authors are setting out a boldly different framework for understanding the ecological crisis.... This perspective has something to offend nearly everyone: Business interests will choke on the apocalyptic description of the earth in crisis but may be flattered by the suggestion that they have the means to solve it. Most environmentalists agree on the vast dimensions of the threat to nature but may dismiss the authors' can-do optimism as dangerously naive. I have particular doubts of my own. Nevertheless, Natural Capitalism poses an intelligent challenge to lazy assumptions on both sides of the political divide and ought to jump-start a reinvigorated environmental debate." -William Greider http://www.natcap.org/ > Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea levels. They also learned that the bicycle is the st way to go.     Date: 07 Feb 2007 06:29:29 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: the bicycle is the smart way to go donquijote1954 <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Certainly much of the forests in western europe are now gone, >> and western europe manages fine without them anyway. > Depends where you cut trees down. Nope, it doesnt have that much effect on climate wherever its done. > Europe is a wet climate but in most other places you get desertification... Wrong. > "Current desertification is taking place much faster worldwide than historically That is just plain wrong. > and usually arises from the demands of increased populations > that settle on the land in order to grow crops and graze animals." That isnt due to the trees going, its due to the other use of that land once the trees have gone. You didnt get that effect in north america either. Or in Australia or south america either. In china in spades. The desertification that has been seen in north africa isnt priily due to the loss of forests. > (awesome picture) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification > Well, here in America you probably build malls and parking lots to accomodate > the SUVs for the happy consumers of products made in China. Wrong again, almost none of those replaced forests. >>> What are we willing to do to mitigate that possibility? >> It makes absolutely no sense to cripple the world's economys >> for something that isnt going to happen like that mindless claim >> about 'possible destruction of human existence' > We cripple Big Oil and promote Natural > Capitalism, what's the big deal about it? The economic disaster that would produce. That would make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. > "Natural Capitalism is so informative and provocative-and so > unfashionably optimistic about the future of the planet-that I wonder > why everyone in public life is not reading it and arguing over the > implications. They dont because anyone with a clue realises its cloud cuckooland. > The President did volunteer a nice plug for the book when it came out a few months ago, He's always been a fool, look at Iraq. > but it has yet to be reviewed by virtually any leading publication. Because they realise its mindless fruit loop stuff. > Literary culture doesn't grasp the high drama of industrial engineering. > Newspaper editors, like other Americans, are transfixed by business stories > about moguls and supermoguls from this gilded age and the previous one. And america dominated the world on industrial engineering anyway. Those fools have always been completely irrelevant. > "The book will find its audience, regardless. Yes, there have always been plenty of mindless fruit loops around. > It is that important. Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. > The authors are setting out a boldly different framework for > understanding the ecological crisis.... This perspective has > something to offend nearly everyone: Business interests will > choke on the apocalyptic description of the earth in crisis And so will anyone with a clue. Its just another utterly silly mindless hyperventilation that fools like Malthus started and we have seen countless examples of since like the Club of Rome and Erlich etc etc etc. NOT ONE has ever got it right and most have ended up with egg all over their silly little faces amazingly quickly. > but may be flattered by the suggestion that they have the means to solve it. Anyone with a clue realises that there aint no 'solve it' > Most environmentalists agree on the vast dimensions of the threat to nature Who cares ? Those fools have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. They're so stupid that they cant even manage to eschew the stuff they mindlessly hyperventilate about and consume just as much as anyone else. Fools like Gore in spades, fucking the environment personally FAR more than almost any other single individual. > but may dismiss the authors' can-do optimism as dangerously naive. Just mindlessly naive. Nothing 'dangerous' about them. > I have particular doubts of my own. Nevertheless, Natural Capitalism > poses an intelligent challenge to lazy assumptions on both sides of > the political divide and ought to jump-start a reinvigorated > environmental debate." -William Greider Wota fucking wanker. > http://www.natcap.org/ >> Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea levels. > They also learned that the bicycle is the st way to go. Its viable there. It aint in LA for example. And they cant manage the basics on welfare or immigration either.   Date: 06 Feb 2007 09:03:31 From: donquijote1954 Subject: We need BIKE LANES! On Feb 5, 12:26 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > having laws telling cyclists to stay at the right edge of the lane they > > are in! > > Yea, discrimination against slow traffic should be abolished. Exactly. This is what inspired my jungle stories. The lion tells the monkey, "Go ahead, you are 'free' to ride a bike." But the monkey senses that may be a trap and remains in the treetops. For him to come down, there must a sign that clearly states, "This space is for monkeys." Like this... http://content.crazyphotos.com/oddanimals150.jpg The problem is the lion ain't happy to eat peanuts. He wants juicy steak, like in a $40,000 SUV, as thirsty as possible... RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word of choice... "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying) "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book) And this one... "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens" -Alastair Farrugia Oh, that one was so good. So let's see: The monkey can cry all he wants but he will be ignored. Tough life that of the monkey. Other quotes... "Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth" -Aldous Huxley That one was deep. We all live in the lie (notice the word "lie" in li- on). And look at this one... "The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any" -Alice Walker And this would threaten the order in the jungle... "Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers" -Aristotle And here they must be talking about the lion... "The wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in front of it" -Axel Munthe Many more quotes to entertain yourself are found at the link below. I hope you use them responsibly and don't start a revolution. http://www.democracy.ru/english/quotes.php *Riding a bike is good for the environment, great for peace, and excellent for your health. We need facilities, though, like BIKE LINES to be safe.   Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:39:16 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Only the revolution can save the planet In article <vu0gs2ll579t4cofpcr1fcjn2lluaf6p2c@4ax.com >, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > writes: >>> >>> I'm thinking all we gotta do is to convince everyone who's sure that >>> we're all doomed anyway to "check out early" - get it over with, why >>> wait for us all to be drowned in 10 years when the sea level jumps up >>> 10,000 feet. That'll cut down on the needs for a lot of resources, >>> and will reduce the release of hot air considerably. ;-) >> >>Fat revolutionaries are a good source of bio fuel. > > Kind of a "Soylent Green" thing... hey NOW I get that title, after all > these years! ;-) Not to be confused with Simple Green[tm]. Unlesss ... cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca   Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:19:18 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Only the revolution can save the planet In article <2dn7s29acm2qhqaue5mdvgvilv90p8dj30@4ax.com >, k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > writes: > Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: > >>On 2 Feb 2007 05:51:17 -0800, "donquijote1954" >><nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>You said best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming >>>soon)... >> >> Stick it. > > I'm thinking all we gotta do is to convince everyone who's sure that > we're all doomed anyway to "check out early" - get it over with, why > wait for us all to be drowned in 10 years when the sea level jumps up > 10,000 feet. That'll cut down on the needs for a lot of resources, > and will reduce the release of hot air considerably. ;-) Fat revolutionaries are a good source of bio fuel. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:29:16 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Only the revolution can save the planet tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: >In article <2dn7s29acm2qhqaue5mdvgvilv90p8dj30@4ax.com>, > k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> writes: >> Joe Fischer <joe@westpointracing.com> wrote: >> >>>On 2 Feb 2007 05:51:17 -0800, "donquijote1954" >>><nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>You said best. There's one hope though: THE REVOLUTION (coming >>>>soon)... >>> >>> Stick it. >> >> I'm thinking all we gotta do is to convince everyone who's sure that >> we're all doomed anyway to "check out early" - get it over with, why >> wait for us all to be drowned in 10 years when the sea level jumps up >> 10,000 feet. That'll cut down on the needs for a lot of resources, >> and will reduce the release of hot air considerably. ;-) > >Fat revolutionaries are a good source of bio fuel. Kind of a "Soylent Green" thing... hey NOW I get that title, after all these years! ;-) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame   Date: 05 Feb 2007 07:22:08 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way On Feb 4, 12:33 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Don Klipstein wrote: > > What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting bike > > users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that I think are > > no better for bikes than plenty of bridges! > > There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's people > who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way. I think there's such a thing as an unfriendly society, an unfriendly president and an unfriendly road. They all conpire to make you, the cyclist wanting to do the right thing, a Quixote of sorts, without having the benefit of somene writing your story for generations to come. The arms of the windmills can crush your dreams in your first adventure.   Date: 04 Feb 2007 22:14:07 From: Ben Pfaff Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) writes: > In article <45c68052$0$16912$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Wayne Pein wrote: >>The Real Bev wrote: >> >>> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a >>> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of >>> traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the curb. >>> No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough space to >>> pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is probably >>> already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody, and most >>> bicyclists stay off such roads. >>> >>It's interesting how motorists incriminate themselves by claiming that >>slow traffic, and specifically bicycle traffic, causes the danger. As a >>motorist, I don't have a problem with slow traffic such as bicycles, >>front loaders, stopped busses, cars and delivery vehicles. I think >>incompetent motorists should just not drive. > > What percentage of motorists do you expect to keep their cool when they > have to slow down a lot for a cyclist, only to see the cyclist keep moving > towards beside the vehicle at the head of the line when the motor vehicles > stop and line up for a red light? How can the cyclists do that if there is no room for a cyclist and a car within a single lane? That is the situation under discussion, as I read it. -- Ben Pfaff blp@cs.stanford.edu http://benpfaff.org   Date: 04 Feb 2007 17:42:22 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report Mauried wrote: > There is no mechanism to force China to do anything, short of > declaring war and invading the country, and I cant see anyone wanting > to do this. Just stop buying from them, and they will meet pollution control or whatever you want. I mean, if you really wanted it.   Date: 04 Feb 2007 17:40:33 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong On Feb 3, 9:29 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > point is, "What ever happened to little economy cars??". > Bill Baka- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Europe is full of them. They are too St for us... Mercedes St Car Headed for U.S. ket June 26, 2006 DaimlerChrysler plans to sell its 60-mile-per-gallon two-seater St Car in the U.S. next year. The little St Car is just more than 8 feet long and less than 5 feet wide and is small enough to fit in half of a typical parking space. The three-cylinder turbocharged St Car can achieve up to 60 mpg, according to DaimlerChrysler. .     Date: 05 Feb 2007 05:58:13 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 3, 9:29 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> point is, "What ever happened to little economy cars??". >> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > Europe is full of them. They are too St for us... > > Mercedes St Car Headed for U.S. ket > > June 26, 2006 > DaimlerChrysler plans to sell its 60-mile-per-gallon two-seater St > Car in the U.S. next year. > > The little St Car is just more than 8 feet long and less than 5 > feet wide and is small enough to fit in half of a typical parking > space. > > The three-cylinder turbocharged St Car can achieve up to 60 mpg, > according to DaimlerChrysler. > > > . > I used to drive nothing but Renault R-8's and R-10's and one of those got a staggering 54 MPG, in the 60's and 70's. It can be done, so why are all the car ads bragging about 28 MPG? Does nobody feel like their intelligence is under rated by the keting guys? Even an American tank can get over 30 MPG if it is gear right. My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high gearing I had. I really feel insulted by some of the ads on television. Bill Baka       Date: 05 Feb 2007 06:27:29 From: di Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> > My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high > gearing I had. . > Bill Baka Bullshit!         Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:36:44 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote: >"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >> gearing I had. >. >> Bill Baka > >Bullshit! Good luck. We've had this conversation several times. In Bill's universe, reducing the engine speed by 35% increases gas mileage by about 50%. I asked him why kicking in the overdrive in my Jeep Grand Cherokee (which has a very accurate instant mileage computer, and an overdrive that cuts the cruise RPM by about 33%) only increases my gas mileage by about 5% (from about 19 to 20mph). He goes silent on that (claimed it wasn't a very aerodynamic vehicle, after claiming the effect worked great in his F-150 pickup!). I've concluded that Bill lives in an alternate universe that's not subject to the same limitations as the one I live in. ;-) k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame           Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:04:44 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: > >> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >>> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >>> gearing I had. >> . >>> Bill Baka >> Bullshit! > > Good luck. We've had this conversation several times. In Bill's > universe, reducing the engine speed by 35% increases gas mileage by > about 50%. I asked him why kicking in the overdrive in my Jeep Grand > Cherokee (which has a very accurate instant mileage computer, and an > overdrive that cuts the cruise RPM by about 33%) only increases my gas > mileage by about 5% (from about 19 to 20mph). > > He goes silent on that (claimed it wasn't a very aerodynamic vehicle, > after claiming the effect worked great in his F-150 pickup!). k, I have to say that you are almost brain dead on the subject of physics. About ten years ago I devised a simple test to see how much power was wasted just by turning the engine over. Using my gas guzzling 1966 Mopar I hit 70 MPH and then coasted down to 60, in drive. 7 seconds. Same test again only in neutral. 14 seconds. Where did the extra coast come from? Duh, I think it's the engine. If you can't do semi-simple math don't comment. > > I've concluded that Bill lives in an alternate universe that's not > subject to the same limitations as the one I live in. ;-) I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand the question. Bill Baka > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame             Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:27:56 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: >> >>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >>>> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >>>> gearing I had. >>> . >>>> Bill Baka >>> Bullshit! >> >> Good luck. We've had this conversation several times. In Bill's >> universe, reducing the engine speed by 35% increases gas mileage by >> about 50%. I asked him why kicking in the overdrive in my Jeep Grand >> Cherokee (which has a very accurate instant mileage computer, and an >> overdrive that cuts the cruise RPM by about 33%) only increases my gas >> mileage by about 5% (from about 19 to 20mph). >> >> He goes silent on that (claimed it wasn't a very aerodynamic vehicle, >> after claiming the effect worked great in his F-150 pickup!). > >I have to say that you are almost brain dead on the subject of physics. >About ten years ago I devised a simple test to see how much power was >wasted just by turning the engine over. Using my gas guzzling 1966 Mopar >I hit 70 MPH and then coasted down to 60, in drive. 7 seconds. >Same test again only in neutral. 14 seconds. >Where did the extra coast come from? Duh, I think it's the engine. >If you can't do semi-simple math don't comment. OK Bill, you win. You're ster than all the automotive engineers in the world, and are capable of getting results that us mere mortals will never achieve. And I'm sure engine braking had nothing to do with it - race drivers don't really do that to save the brakes - they do it 'cuz it sounds neat. >> I've concluded that Bill lives in an alternate universe that's not >> subject to the same limitations as the one I live in. ;-) > >I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand the question. Uh huh. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame               Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:24:50 From: The Real Bev Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> About ten years ago I devised a simple test to see how much power was >> wasted just by turning the engine over. Using my gas guzzling 1966 Mopar >> I hit 70 MPH and then coasted down to 60, in drive. 7 seconds. >> Same test again only in neutral. 14 seconds. >> Where did the extra coast come from? Duh, I think it's the engine. >> If you can't do semi-simple math don't comment. > > OK Bill, you win. You're ster than all the automotive engineers in > the world, and are capable of getting results that us mere mortals > will never achieve. And I'm sure engine braking had nothing to do > with it - race drivers don't really do that to save the brakes - they > do it 'cuz it sounds neat. I'd hope there was some advantage -- it seems silly to save wear on cheap brake linings by wearing out expensive engine and clutch parts. -- Cheers, Bev =================================== New sig on order, watch this space.                 Date: 06 Feb 2007 06:33:45 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong The Real Bev <bashley101+xp@gmail.com > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> About ten years ago I devised a simple test to see how much power was >>> wasted just by turning the engine over. Using my gas guzzling 1966 Mopar >>> I hit 70 MPH and then coasted down to 60, in drive. 7 seconds. >>> Same test again only in neutral. 14 seconds. >>> Where did the extra coast come from? Duh, I think it's the engine. >>> If you can't do semi-simple math don't comment. >> >> OK Bill, you win. You're ster than all the automotive engineers in >> the world, and are capable of getting results that us mere mortals >> will never achieve. And I'm sure engine braking had nothing to do >> with it - race drivers don't really do that to save the brakes - they >> do it 'cuz it sounds neat. > >I'd hope there was some advantage -- it seems silly to save wear on >cheap brake linings by wearing out expensive engine and clutch parts. On the road, you betcha... but on the race track, you try to save your brakes by using engine braking. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                   Date: 07 Feb 2007 00:48:04 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > The Real Bev <bashley101+xp@gmail.com> wrote: > >> k Hickey wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> About ten years ago I devised a simple test to see how much power was >>>> wasted just by turning the engine over. Using my gas guzzling 1966 Mopar >>>> I hit 70 MPH and then coasted down to 60, in drive. 7 seconds. >>>> Same test again only in neutral. 14 seconds. >>>> Where did the extra coast come from? Duh, I think it's the engine. >>>> If you can't do semi-simple math don't comment. >>> OK Bill, you win. You're ster than all the automotive engineers in >>> the world, and are capable of getting results that us mere mortals >>> will never achieve. And I'm sure engine braking had nothing to do >>> with it - race drivers don't really do that to save the brakes - they >>> do it 'cuz it sounds neat. >> I'd hope there was some advantage -- it seems silly to save wear on >> cheap brake linings by wearing out expensive engine and clutch parts. > > On the road, you betcha... but on the race track, you try to save your > brakes by using engine braking. It only makes sense at that speed. I mean, really, who wants their brakes to go out at 200 MPH?? Bill Baka > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame                   Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:45:45 From: The Real Bev Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > The Real Bev <bashley101+xp@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd hope there was some advantage -- it seems silly to save wear on >> cheap brake linings by wearing out expensive engine and clutch parts. > > On the road, you betcha... but on the race track, you try to save your > brakes by using engine braking. More reserve capacity in the engine than in the brakes? Why not make thicker pads? > Home of the $795 ti frame Has this always been the price? I suppose I could google for old sigs, but I'm lazy... -- Cheers, Bev =================================== New sig on order, watch this space.               Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:47:53 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> k Hickey wrote: >>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >>>>> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >>>>> gearing I had. >>>> . >>>>> Bill Baka >>>> Bullshit! >>> Good luck. We've had this conversation several times. In Bill's >>> universe, reducing the engine speed by 35% increases gas mileage by >>> about 50%. I asked him why kicking in the overdrive in my Jeep Grand >>> Cherokee (which has a very accurate instant mileage computer, and an >>> overdrive that cuts the cruise RPM by about 33%) only increases my gas >>> mileage by about 5% (from about 19 to 20mph). >>> >>> He goes silent on that (claimed it wasn't a very aerodynamic vehicle, >>> after claiming the effect worked great in his F-150 pickup!). >> I have to say that you are almost brain dead on the subject of physics. >> About ten years ago I devised a simple test to see how much power was >> wasted just by turning the engine over. Using my gas guzzling 1966 Mopar >> I hit 70 MPH and then coasted down to 60, in drive. 7 seconds. >> Same test again only in neutral. 14 seconds. >> Where did the extra coast come from? Duh, I think it's the engine. >> If you can't do semi-simple math don't comment. > > OK Bill, you win. You're ster than all the automotive engineers in > the world, and are capable of getting results that us mere mortals > will never achieve. And I'm sure engine braking had nothing to do > with it - race drivers don't really do that to save the brakes - they > do it 'cuz it sounds neat. The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under the hood, which in turn sells cars. As far as your rek on engine braking, you just made my point. Thanks, Bill Baka > >>> I've concluded that Bill lives in an alternate universe that's not >>> subject to the same limitations as the one I live in. ;-) >> I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand the question. > > Uh huh. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame                 Date: 05 Feb 2007 22:36:23 From: Fred G. Mackey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Bill Baka wrote: > The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and > design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift > to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under > the hood, which in turn sells cars. I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old car with the 5-speed manual transmission. I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic. That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to drink my coffee between shifts.                   Date: 07 Feb 2007 00:42:48 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Fred G. Mackey wrote: > Bill Baka wrote: > >> The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and >> design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift >> to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power >> under the hood, which in turn sells cars. > > I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old > car with the 5-speed manual transmission. > > I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration > - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects > - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few > advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic. > > That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to > drink my coffee between shifts. Finally, Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG. It can't happen with a new car since they are all going to front wheel drive. Bill Baka                     Date: 07 Feb 2007 06:35:21 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put >a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The >other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and >try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG. I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a flat highway). Interested in taking that bet? >It can't happen with a new car since they are all going to front wheel >drive. Why not? The losses associated with turning the driving force to the wheels 90 degrees through the differential is one of the main reasons we don't have rear wheel drive cars any more (with the obvious few exceptions). Seems obvious to me that if you can get 40mpg out of a rear drive Falcon, you should be able to get more than that out of a FWD version. Heh. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                       Date: 08 Feb 2007 00:30:05 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put >> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The >> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and >> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG. > > I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the > verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a > flat highway). Interested in taking that bet? I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics leaves a lot to be desired. > >> It can't happen with a new car since they are all going to front wheel >> drive. > > Why not? The losses associated with turning the driving force to the > wheels 90 degrees through the differential is one of the main reasons > we don't have rear wheel drive cars any more (with the obvious few > exceptions). Seems obvious to me that if you can get 40mpg out of a > rear drive Falcon, you should be able to get more than that out of a > FWD version. Heh. Once again you have missed the point. Gearing is the way to do that and on a front wheel drive you can't do shit. The cracker boxes they are selling now are only front wheel drive because they are easier to put together at the plant. More profit for them and damn near unmodifiable for us. That is why I am on a quest for a 60's Falcon or Fairlane so I can twiddle around with it. The only newer car I would mess with would be a Mustang. Bill Baka > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame                         Date: 07 Feb 2007 18:32:19 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put >>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The >>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and >>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG. >> >> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the >> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a >> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet? > >I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics >leaves a lot to be desired. OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed (65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in the differential. Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-) Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it? k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                           Date: 08 Feb 2007 02:25:21 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> k Hickey wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put >>>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The >>>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and >>>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG. >>> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the >>> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a >>> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet? >> I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics >> leaves a lot to be desired. > > OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do > is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed > (65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in > the differential. > > Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-) > > Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it? > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame First I have to find a project car. It should be easy to get 40 MPG since I got 38 out of a 1961 Rambler, which was an aerodynamic brick. Got any old cars with a 3 on the tree? Bill Baka                             Date: 08 Feb 2007 05:58:54 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> k Hickey wrote: >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put >>>>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The >>>>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and >>>>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG. >>>> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the >>>> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a >>>> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet? >>> I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics >>> leaves a lot to be desired. >> >> OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do >> is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed >> (65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in >> the differential. >> >> Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-) >> >> Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it? > >First I have to find a project car. It should be easy to get 40 MPG >since I got 38 out of a 1961 Rambler, which was an aerodynamic brick. >Got any old cars with a 3 on the tree? No, but they're not THAT hard to find (though the Fairlane is starting to appreciate in value). I just pulled 47 Fairlanes up on Ebay. Should be a piece of cake. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:12:54 From: Don Klipstein Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong In article <RoFxh.65013$sE7.17181@newsfe21.lga >, di wrote: > >"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >> gearing I had. >. >> Bill Baka > >Bullshit! I have a '93 Olds Delta 88 Royale, which is a largish car roughly the size of a Crown Vic. Thanks to lockup torque converter and a shape that appears to me a little more aerodynamic than average, it's highway MPG is well into the 30's. High MPG can be achieved from cars that don't look too fuel-efficient, and we should demand much more still from cars that look like they can do it. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)           Date: 06 Feb 2007 04:25:12 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong Don Klipstein wrote: > In article <RoFxh.65013$sE7.17181@newsfe21.lga>, di wrote: >> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >>> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >>> gearing I had. >> . >>> Bill Baka >> Bullshit! > > I have a '93 Olds Delta 88 Royale, which is a largish car roughly the > size of a Crown Vic. Thanks to lockup torque converter and a shape that > appears to me a little more aerodynamic than average, it's highway MPG > is well into the 30's. > > High MPG can be achieved from cars that don't look too fuel-efficient, > and we should demand much more still from cars that look like they can do > it. > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) Thank you Don. If geared right and stick or lock up then 40 MPG is definitely possible. Those pistons don't go up and down 30 times per second for free. Bill Baka         Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:45:39 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong di wrote: > "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message news:VHzxh.71362>> >> My 1988 Mustang 5.0 got 33 MPG in cruise mode, due to the extra high >> gearing I had. > . >> Bill Baka > > Bullshit! > > Sorry, it is true. I ordered it with the 5 speed Tremec and a 2.73 rear end gear so at 55 MPH it got 33 MPG and about1,400 RPM. That is the same way I got 38 MPG from a flathead 6 in my 1961 rambler. In both cases I had to down shift to get any real passing power but I wasn't blowing my gas just to make pistons go up and down. RPM is why cars don't get any better mileage. Every Joe Consumer wants his power without down shifting so not a single manufacturer offers that extra high gear. Both my Mazda and my daughter's Kia do over 2,000 RPM at highway speeds. New cars are coming with almost universal front wheel drive so there is no longer the choice of changing the gears for economy. The only cars offering rear wheel drive are the Mustang, Viper, Corvette, and the large Ford cars like the Lincoln, Mercury quis and a limited few others. Sad state of affairs but there you have it. Bill Baka   Date: 04 Feb 2007 17:23:36 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong On Feb 3, 6:46 pm, "chadsee...@gmail.com" <chadsee...@gmail.com > wrote: > Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all > abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here > is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming. > First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy > these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they > can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we > are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world > with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon > dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of > eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1 > million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on > this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government > has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to > educate their children properly" or something like that.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yep, but the hungry lions make history, and they can't bet on vehicles that feed them with "peanuts" --the bike. They want juicy steak... 'Yes, we need to fight a war, but no, the enemy is not Iraq... The enemy is oil with 65+ percent of the known oil reserves in the politically unstable, "Death to America"-chanting Middel East. Imagine the advances the United States could make to world stability and developing domestic employment opportunities if it spent the $79+ billion Congress recently approved for Bush's Iraq war on alternative energy subsidies and investment. Might this be a better way to fight terrorism, support our troops, and regain world favor?' -Jay Lustgarten (Source: World Press Review, letters). See this solution... http://www.joinfoil.org/index.html     Date: 05 Feb 2007 05:53:46 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 3, 6:46 pm, "chadsee...@gmail.com" <chadsee...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all >> abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here >> is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming. >> First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy >> these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they >> can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we >> are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world >> with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon >> dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of >> eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1 >> million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on >> this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government >> has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to >> educate their children properly" or something like that.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Yep, but the hungry lions make history, and they can't bet on vehicles > that feed them with "peanuts" --the bike. They want juicy steak... > > 'Yes, we need to fight a war, but no, the enemy is not Iraq... The > enemy is oil with 65+ percent of the known oil reserves in the > politically unstable, "Death to America"-chanting Middel East. Imagine > the advances the United States could make to world stability and > developing domestic employment opportunities if it spent the $79+ > billion Congress recently approved for Bush's Iraq war on alternative > energy subsidies and investment. Might this be a better way to fight > terrorism, support our troops, and regain world favor?' > -Jay Lustgarten (Source: World Press Review, letters). See this > solution... http://www.joinfoil.org/index.html > > > $79 billion is nothing compared to the total cost so far. It is more like half a trillion. A trillion. Try to even count that high. Bush must be counting on the average person not being able to understand how MUCH that is. Bill Baka   Date: 04 Feb 2007 17:10:28 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Do you see the connection b/ Global Warming and Armageddon? On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > > So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are > > causing Armageddon! > > That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the > pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van > (SUV) to carry them all over the place. I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs... HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek... Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god... And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad that He declared war against the Devil...     Date: 05 Feb 2007 05:36:37 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Do you see the connection b/ Global Warming and Armageddon? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are >>> causing Armageddon! >> That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the >> pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van >> (SUV) to carry them all over the place. > > I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we > know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at > work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs... > > HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED > > One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning > the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into > temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek... > Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a > brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the > Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god... > > And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad > that He declared war against the Devil... > So now Earth is a war zone???   Date: 03 Feb 2007 15:46:06 From: chadseelye@gmail.com Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong On Feb 1, 2:19 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com > wrote: > Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among > humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid > Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles. And how about those > who --like me-- want to ride a bike, but find there's no safe place > for it. It's a frightful jungle out there, you know. So we must sit > back and swallow in disgust reports like this that blame all humans. > But I say to these so called experts: Hey guys, it's not "humans," > it's the lions of the jungle that ride SUVs to satisfy their > Napoleonic complex, and it's those who can change things, but rather > decide to spend a fortune in extravagant projects. Well, this is > Napoleon himself... > > http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/Q/bush_napoleon.jpg > > (Bush and Napoleon...http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04102003.html) > > HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY > > One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and > complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that > every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances > to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for > them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the > kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of > the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack > of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that > it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite > words... > > Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life > in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season > the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the > Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would > have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more > importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as > the quick way out of poverty..." > > And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in > the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle -- > to the effect of exploring life in other planets... > > *** > > PARIS - Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much- > awaited international report will say that global warming was "very > likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change > conference said. Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the > new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed- > door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously > approved, is to be released Friday. > > Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the > meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very > likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a > 90 percent chance that global warming is human-caused. > > The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by > human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might > try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which > means a 99 percent chance. > > The report is considered an authoritative document that could > influence government and industrial policy worldwide. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change > > WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > > THE BANANA REVOLUTION ;)http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming. First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1 million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to educate their children properly" or something like that.     Date: 03 Feb 2007 18:29:08 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong chadseelye@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 1, 2:19 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> Hey, that I knew. What is missing in this report though is who among >> humans are to blame. See, NOT ALL HUMANS POLLUTE: some drive Stupid >> Unnecessary Vehicles while others ride bicycles. And how about those >> who --like me-- want to ride a bike, but find there's no safe place >> for it. It's a frightful jungle out there, you know. So we must sit >> back and swallow in disgust reports like this that blame all humans. >> But I say to these so called experts: Hey guys, it's not "humans," >> it's the lions of the jungle that ride SUVs to satisfy their >> Napoleonic complex, and it's those who can change things, but rather >> decide to spend a fortune in extravagant projects. Well, this is >> Napoleon himself... >> >> http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/Q/bush_napoleon.jpg >> >> (Bush and Napoleon...http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04102003.html) >> >> HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY >> >> One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and >> complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that >> every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances >> to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for >> them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the >> kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of >> the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack >> of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that >> it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite >> words... >> >> Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life >> in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season >> the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the >> Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would >> have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more >> importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as >> the quick way out of poverty..." >> >> And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in >> the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle -- >> to the effect of exploring life in other planets... >> >> *** >> >> PARIS - Officials from 113 countries agreed Thursday that a much- >> awaited international report will say that global warming was "very >> likely" caused by human activity, delegates to a climate change >> conference said. Dozens of scientists and bureaucrats are editing the >> new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed- >> door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously >> approved, is to be released Friday. >> >> Two participants, speaking on condition of anonymity because the >> meetings are confidential, said the group approved the term "very >> likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a >> 90 percent chance that global warming is human-caused. >> >> The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by >> human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might >> try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which >> means a 99 percent chance. >> >> The report is considered an authoritative document that could >> influence government and industrial policy worldwide. >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change >> >> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote >> >> THE BANANA REVOLUTION ;)http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40 > > Reading the thread I have to laugh it's funny how cyclist of all > abilities and location on Earth are generally thinking the same. Here > is my take on the financial side of this war and global warming. > First lets take the billions of dollars invested in this war and buy > these people bikes. A) It will help reduce stress and then maybe they > can look at this dispute in a new light. B) By taking the money we > are spending on this war we could supply people all over the world > with nonpolluting means of transportation that would lower carbon > dioxide levels around the world. Okay so this is a thought of > eutopia. However, if you can't dream it you can't be it. At over 1 > million dollars a day earning for exon I wonder what there take is on > this idea. A famous quote goes "I wait for the day when government > has to have a bake sale to build a bomb, and schools have money to > educate their children properly" or something like that. > Hell, if we had spent nearly $400 billion on alternative energy we wouldn't need the damned oil. That much money would have bought so much in the way of solar panels that the sheer quantity would drive down the price. Bush has now committed us to oil that much more than before. I remember when he said he could get in and out on ONLY $87 billion. I wonder if he even thinks that much about how badly he screwed up. We could have been oil independent by now if he would have instituted a gas hog tax and added about $0.50 tax per gallon to make bicycle pathways. If you make the SUV crowd too broke to pay for gasoline, then you force them to buy economical cars. I saw a commercial about a week ago bragging that their truck had an even bigger V-8 than Fords and it was only about $45,000 to buy one. It was for Nissan or Toyota, but the point is, "What ever happened to little economy cars??". Bill Baka   Date: 03 Feb 2007 13:37:44 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way On Feb 3, 3:58 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > > donquijote1954 wrote: > > >> Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>> Further, bus public transit is heavy and destroys the pavement, > >>> something that is very important to bicyclists. And when the bus pulls > >>> over to the curb, there is conflict with bicyclists. > > >>> Frankly, public transportation and bicycling have nothing in common. > >>> Bicycling has much more in common with automobile travel. > > >>>http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2004/ > >>> html/table_04_20.html > > >>>http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fot... > > >> No way. Buses with racks go a long way for bicyclists who just use the > >> bikes for shorter distances. They are complementary... > > > So, the 2 bicyclists that use the bus are still chauffered energy > > users/polluters for their bus leg. > > > Wayne > > No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty. The use of > a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past > the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody > should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the > hands of motorist who could care less. > It's called 'Survival instinct'. > It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump > on anyone caught in the open. > Bill Baka- Hide quoted text - > Good thinking. You should take it on the bus until you pass the "jungle." Then you ride in fine and beautiful bike paths where the lions (the rich and famous) live. Be careful they don't steal your bike off the rack while traversing the jungle.     Date: 03 Feb 2007 21:56:33 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 3, 3:58 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> No way. The buses are going to run either way, full or empty. The use of >> a bus makes perfect sense when you consider that you can take one past >> the most dangerous part of town and drop you at a safer location. Nobody >> should be so into the bike that they willfully put their life in the >> hands of motorist who could care less. >> It's called 'Survival instinct'. >> It's also nice to fall back when the weather opens up and wants to dump >> on anyone caught in the open. >> Bill Baka- >> > > Good thinking. You should take it on the bus until you pass the > "jungle." Then you ride in fine and beautiful bike paths where the > lions (the rich and famous) live. Be careful they don't steal your > bike off the rack while traversing the jungle. > No rich and famous around here unless you count Chuck Yeager. Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually clueless, waits. Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before the bike is history. There are all types of petty thieves running around. Life in the city is not automagically civilized. Bill Baka       Date: 04 Feb 2007 18:06:19 From: nash Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull > a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually > clueless, waits. > Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before the > bike is history. > There are all types of petty thieves running around. > Life in the city is not automagically civilized. > Bill Baka That has happened to me. The bus driver was not clueless, but I always ride in front anyway. SN         Date: 04 Feb 2007 12:59:19 From: The Real Bev Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way nash wrote: >> Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull >> a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually >> clueless, waits. >> Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before the >> bike is history. >> There are all types of petty thieves running around. >> Life in the city is not automagically civilized. > > That has happened to me. The bus driver was not clueless, but I always ride > in front anyway. I have to wonder what the driver is expected to do or actually would do if he DID notice a bikejacking. Stop the bus, run out and grab the thief? Not likely. On a different note, husband walks in the middle of the night. He notices lots of normal size buses traveling with no passengers, just the driver. Might it not make a lot of sense to run vans during ultra-low-usage hours instead of behemoth buses that get good passenger-mileage only when there actually are passengers? -- Cheers, Bev =================================== New sig on order, watch this space.           Date: 04 Feb 2007 23:53:20 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way The Real Bev wrote: > nash wrote: > >>> Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull >>> a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, >>> usually clueless, waits. >>> Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out >>> before the bike is history. >>> There are all types of petty thieves running around. >>> Life in the city is not automagically civilized. >> >> That has happened to me. The bus driver was not clueless, but I >> always ride in front anyway. > > I have to wonder what the driver is expected to do or actually would do > if he DID notice a bikejacking. Stop the bus, run out and grab the > thief? Not likely. > > On a different note, husband walks in the middle of the night. He > notices lots of normal size buses traveling with no passengers, just the > driver. Might it not make a lot of sense to run vans during > ultra-low-usage hours instead of behemoth buses that get good > passenger-mileage only when there actually are passengers? > Good idea, but you have to get politicians to agree on buying vans in addition to the bus fleet. Bill Baka             Date: 05 Feb 2007 05:04:20 From: nash Subject: Re: Buses with racks go a long way Some of the suburbs of Vancouver have them. Called Shuttle buses but only go short distances in town.   Date: 03 Feb 2007 13:33:04 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Feb 3, 4:20 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > On Feb 2, 5:12 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate. > > > Chocolate is a fancy drug used by liberals given to European socialist > > ideas of biking and small cars. Real Americans eat something like > > Freedom Fries --and drive SUVs. > > Hah, > They don't go into the bag very well for a long trip, and forget about a > 'Big Mac'. I can travel a long way on chocolate power. > Give me chocolate and I will do almost anything (reasonable). > Bill Baka Well, I see you are leaning left. Try this brand... http://www.candywarehouse.com/patriothearts.html Double check is NOT made in China, like the patriotic ribbons "We support our troops." ;) Anyways why is it that Christians buy so many SUVs? I always wondered... Why do people liken SUVs and Christianity together? Many Christians drive SUVs for many reasons. In fact, this is done symbolically since SUVs and Christianity both do the same things. TRUE FACTS THAT ARE TRUE SINCE WE USED THE WORD TRUE WHICH MAKES THEM TRUE SINCE THEY ARE FACTS WHICH MEANS THEY ARE TRUE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Emits air which makes trees and plants grow more plentifully. This ensures healthy people and a higher chance of being st enough to become a Christian. ~Emits the Word of God which unites all people in the world and makes the world peaceful. There is no war or murders. This is why America is the #1 Christian nation on Earth with the lowest divorce rates, crime rates, suicides, wars, nuclear weapons, guns, gangs, drugs, prostitution and so forth. The more Christian a nation gets, the less of these things you see (ignore what the Liberal Media tells you) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Is huge and powerful. Anything that gets in its way will be destroyed without remorse or regret and those inside will stay unaware of what has happened but laugh and be happy as they go on. ~See above. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Can drive up mountains, over forests, knock down trees, hold two flags on each side and one flag in the back and one on the antenna and two in the rear windows with another on the children's side window and one on the dash board with three glued onto the room with five stapled to the fold out chairs, and can drive on water, and can go fast, and is so tall it can see over everything. It also shows how big your genitals are. ~Runs over Evil such as witches, Catholics, Fags, atheists, pagans, Muslims, pacifists, niggers, and communists MAKING THEM DEAD!!! HAHAHAHA!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Is fuel efficient. ~Is knowledge efficient. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Takes you up mountains on stormy nights. ~Takes you up to Heaven. Why do people liken SUVs and Christianity together? Many Christians drive SUVs for many reasons. In fact, this is done symbolically since SUVs and Christianity both do the same things. http://www.truechristian.com/08.html     Date: 09 Feb 2007 13:12:06 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) On Feb 7, 1:29 am, Anthony Matonak <anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com > wrote: > donquijote1954 wrote: > > ...> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, > > ... > By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) > sat on a young ass. :) Not only sat on it, but also spank it, or whip it, if you prefer. But he would have ridden a bicycle whenever the donkey got tired --or if there had been actual bike lanes. But, as you probably know, the Romans didn't have a bicycle budget.     Date: 09 Feb 2007 12:41:45 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Feb 9, 3:22 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > At least I drive a small car and have no use for an SUV. There are a lot > of 4 wheel drive cars that never even get near an off road experience. > Bill Baka Oh, everything is FAKE about them: their religiosity, their SUVs that never see dirt, and their devotion to democracy. The only thing real is that they LOVE WAR, and POLLUTE LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW. Oh, and they love Freedom Fries.       Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:54:55 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 9, 3:22 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> At least I drive a small car and have no use for an SUV. There are a lot >> of 4 wheel drive cars that never even get near an off road experience. >> Bill Baka > > Oh, everything is FAKE about them: their religiosity, their SUVs that > never see dirt, and their devotion to democracy. > > The only thing real is that they LOVE WAR, and POLLUTE LIKE THERE'S NO > TOMORROW. > > Oh, and they love Freedom Fries. > > Typical show off Californians. Bill Baka     Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:58:51 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Feb 6, 6:09 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote: > > I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, > > would be more fun than having them pollute the planet and support a > > war with their SUVs and then declare that the end is coming soon... > > Once again, someone gets an "Amen". OK, then attend "Anonymous Cyclists." There's no salvation other than the Earth, and the only god is Mother Earth, who's been usurped by the Chauvinist God and his SUV crowds. Ride until you die. Amen for Mother Earth!       Date: 09 Feb 2007 12:22:32 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 6, 6:09 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, >>> would be more fun than having them pollute the planet and support a >>> war with their SUVs and then declare that the end is coming soon... >> Once again, someone gets an "Amen". > > OK, then attend "Anonymous Cyclists." There's no salvation other than > the Earth, and the only god is Mother Earth, who's been usurped by the > Chauvinist God and his SUV crowds. Ride until you die. > > Amen for Mother Earth! > Shouldn't that be CAA for cycling addicts anonymous?? I use the bike for anything less than 5 miles, or big purchases, and of course, business where it would look silly to ride up on a bicycle. At least I drive a small car and have no use for an SUV. There are a lot of 4 wheel drive cars that never even get near an off road experience. Bill Baka     Date: 06 Feb 2007 09:23:23 From: donquijote1954 Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > > >Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. > >Never gonna happen though. > >Bill Baka > > So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? > Just want to get it on record. I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, would be more fun than having them pollute the planet and support a war with their SUVs and then declare that the end is coming soon...       Date: 06 Feb 2007 22:29:42 From: Anthony Matonak Subject: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity donquijote1954 wrote: ... > I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, ... By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass. :) Anthony -- "No Timmy, The answer to 'What would Jesus do?' is Not 'Get Nailed'"         Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:26:47 From: no spam Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) >> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, > ... > By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) > sat on a young ass. :) IOW, he used the transportation of the day.           Date: 08 Feb 2007 07:26:53 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have >>> ridden, >> ... >> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) >> sat on a young ass. :) > > IOW, he used the transportation of the day. Pity that bikes arent that.             Date: 07 Feb 2007 21:35:43 From: no spam Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) >>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have >>>> ridden, >>> ... >>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) >>> sat on a young ass. :) >> >> IOW, he used the transportation of the day. > > Pity that bikes arent that. Depends on where you are. Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing what looked thousands of bikes on a round about. I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes in total much less on the road at the same time. Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where.               Date: 08 Feb 2007 09:24:04 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, >>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass. :) >>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day. >> Pity that bikes arent that. > Depends on where you are. Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either. > Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing what > looked thousands of bikes on a round about. Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian. > I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes in total much less on the road at the same > time. So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. > Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where. So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.                 Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:31:42 From: no spam Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) >> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no >> where. > > So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me. Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other than a 'quickie t' store (they don't tend to sell much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly.                   Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:28:13 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, >>>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass. :) >>>>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day. >>>> Pity that bikes arent that. >>> Depends on where you are. >> Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either. >>> Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing >>> what looked thousands of bikes on a round about. >> Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian. >>> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes in total much less on the road at the same >>> time. >> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. >>> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where. >> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. > Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me. Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored. > Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other than > a 'quickie t' store (they don't tend to sell > much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my > driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide > dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county > road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on > a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me > thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly. Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored. What was being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to be nailed up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use.                     Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:38:03 From: no spam Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) >>>>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have >>>>>>>> ridden, > >>>>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and >>>>>>>> (on special occasions) sat on a young ass. :) > >>>>>> IOW, he used >>>>>>>> the transportation of the day. > >>>>> Pity that bikes arent that. >>>>>>>> > >>>> Depends on where you are. > >>> Nope, and its certainly not >>>>>>>> true of where you are, or where he is either. > >>>> Seems to me >>>>>>>> that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian >>>>>>>> city showing >>>> what looked thousands of bikes on a round about. >>>>>>>> > >>> Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian. > >>>>>>>> >>>> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes in total >>>>>>>> much less on the road at the same >>>> time. > >>> So your silly >>>>>>>> stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. > >>>> Of course bikes >>>>>>>> aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where. > >>> So >>>>>>>> your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. > >> Tell >>>>>>>> you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me. > > Irrelevant >>>>>>>> to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully > >>>>>>>> and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored. You have gotten so confused you have even lost me. Let's review 1) I stated Jesus used the transport of his day. 2) You said that it was too bad "that bikes arent that", suggesting that bikes are not the transport of today by using the present tense. 3) I replied that in some places bikes ARE the transport of the day in some areas. 4) You brought in Christ again, reverting back to the past. Split up my response, see #3, and called my response to you, see #2, silly. 5) I asked you to support yourself by telling me how me how it was silly. 6) Get off track again and refuse to respond. >> Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town >> now) to anything other than >> a 'quickie t' store (they don't tend to >> sell >> much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head >> down my >> driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 ½ lane >> wide >> dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved >> county >> road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can >> get on >> a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how >> me >> thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly. > > Irrelevant >> to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully > and >> dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored. > > What was >> being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to > be nailed >> up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use. That's how it started but changed it when you changed to the present tense. If that was what you meant instead of saying : "Pity that bikes arent that." you should have said 'Pity bikes were not that.' See words mean things and when you use them poorly you don't make yourself clear. >                       Date: 13 Feb 2007 17:08:40 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?) no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, >>>>>>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass. >>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day. >>>>>>> Pity that bikes arent that. >>>>>> Depends on where you are. >>>>>> Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either. >>>>> Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing >>>>> what looked thousands of bikes on a round about. >>>>> Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian. >>>>>> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes >>>>>> in total much less on the road at the same time. >>>>>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. >>>>> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where. >>>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff. >>> Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me. >> Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully and dishonestly >> deleted from the quoting and I have restored. > You have gotten so confused Nope, not confused at all. > you have even lost me. You're easily lost, you're just another rabid bigot fundy. > Let's review > 1) I stated Jesus used the transport of his day. Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly crap about bikes. > 2) You said that it was too bad "that bikes arent that", suggesting > that bikes are not the transport of today by using the present tense. They arent the transport of today where that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was. > 3) I replied that in some places bikes ARE the transport of the day in some areas. Pity they aint where that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was. > 4) You brought in Christ again, Because that was what was being discussed, what he would have ridden. > reverting back to the past. Split up my response, see #3, and called my response to you, see #2, > silly. Your irrelevant shit stays completely irrelevant shit regardless. > 5) I asked you to support yourself by telling me how me how it was silly. Another bare faced lie. > 6) Get off track again and refuse to respond. Another bare faced lie. >>> Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other >>> than a 'quickie t' store (they don't tend to sell >>> much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my >>> driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide >>> dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county >>> road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on >>> a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me >>> thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly. >> Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully >> and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored. >> What was being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to >> be nailed up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use. > That's how it started but changed it when you changed to the present tense. No I didnt, that was implied in the original. > If that was what you meant instead of saying : > "Pity that bikes arent that." > you should have said > 'Pity bikes were not that.' Wrong, as always. > See words mean things Not that you have ever noticed. You're so stupid you cant even work out the difference between an idea and a religion. > and when you use them poorly you don't make yourself clear. And you could never ever bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.               Date: 07 Feb 2007 14:18:15 From: Anthony Matonak Subject: Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity no spam wrote: ... > Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where. I believe the next step up from a bike is a moped or small engine motorcycle. The distinction between these two is often very blurry. I've heard of some countries where these are very popular because cars are too big and expensive. Anthony       Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:09:15 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? donquijote1954 wrote: > k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. >>> Never gonna happen though. >>> Bill Baka >> So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? >> Just want to get it on record. > > I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden, > would be more fun than having them pollute the planet and support a > war with their SUVs and then declare that the end is coming soon... > Once again, someone gets an "Amen". Bill Baka     Date: 03 Feb 2007 21:51:26 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? donquijote1954 wrote: > On Feb 3, 4:20 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >> donquijote1954 wrote: >>> On Feb 2, 5:12 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> BTW, I don't drink or use drugs, except for chocolate. >>> Chocolate is a fancy drug used by liberals given to European socialist >>> ideas of biking and small cars. Real Americans eat something like >>> Freedom Fries --and drive SUVs. >> Hah, >> They don't go into the bag very well for a long trip, and forget about a >> 'Big Mac'. I can travel a long way on chocolate power. >> Give me chocolate and I will do almost anything (reasonable). >> Bill Baka > > Well, I see you are leaning left. Try this brand... > > http://www.candywarehouse.com/patriothearts.html > > Double check is NOT made in China, like the patriotic ribbons "We > support our troops." ;) > > > Anyways why is it that Christians buy so many SUVs? I always > wondered... > > Why do people liken SUVs and Christianity together? > > Many Christians drive SUVs for many reasons. In fact, this is done > symbolically since SUVs and Christianity both do the same things. The hard core Christians don't use birth control and continue to overpopulate because the pope interprets God's will to mean lots of babies. Then you need an SUV. > > > TRUE FACTS THAT ARE TRUE SINCE WE USED THE WORD TRUE WHICH MAKES THEM > TRUE SINCE THEY ARE FACTS WHICH MEANS THEY ARE TRUE HUH???? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~Emits air which makes trees and plants grow more plentifully. This > ensures healthy people and a higher chance of being st enough to > become a Christian. I take offense with that rek. You mean STUPID enough to become one. Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as their way of following God's will. > > ~Emits the Word of God which unites all people in the world and makes > the world peaceful. Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill you type stuff. There is no war or murders. So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned murder? This is why America is > the #1 Christian nation on Earth with the lowest divorce rates, crime > rates, suicides, wars, nuclear weapons, guns, gangs, drugs, > prostitution and so forth. The more Christian a nation gets, the less > of these things you see (ignore what the Liberal Media tells you) Fruit loop detected. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~Is huge and powerful. Anything that gets in its way will be destroyed > without remorse or regret and those inside will stay unaware of what > has happened but laugh and be happy as they go on. That much I can't argue with. We can commit any kind of atrocity as long as it is being done in God's name by someone else (soldiers) and we don't have to look at the results. > > ~See above. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~Can drive up mountains, over forests, knock down trees, hold two > flags on each side and one flag in the back and one on the antenna and > two in the rear windows with another on the children's side window and > one on the dash board with three glued onto the room with five stapled > to the fold out chairs, and can drive on water, and can go fast, and > is so tall it can see over everything. It also shows how big your > genitals are. > > ~Runs over Evil such as witches, Catholics, Fags, atheists, pagans, > Muslims, pacifists, niggers, and communists MAKING THEM DEAD!!! > HAHAHAHA!!! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~Is fuel efficient. > > ~Is knowledge efficient. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~Takes you up mountains on stormy nights. > > ~Takes you up to Heaven. > > Why do people liken SUVs and Christianity together? > > > > > > > > Many Christians drive SUVs for many reasons. In fact, this is done > symbolically since SUVs and Christianity both do the same things. > > > > http://www.truechristian.com/08.html > That should be named "Truly gullible idiots". Bill Baka       Date: 04 Feb 2007 07:56:28 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as >their way of following God's will. > >Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill >you type stuff. > >So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >murder? Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill tilter. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:57:20 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message news:qqsbs21301smt9qfe87mdkag7f58kg03br@4ax.com... : Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: : : >Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the : >Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as : >their way of following God's will. : > : >Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill : >you type stuff. : > : >So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned : >murder? : : Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. : Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of : knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... : believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill : tilter. : : k Hickey Yeah k he should have said Catholics while referring to the pope like that. You are absolutely right. That being said he is right on regarding his charge that the stupid christian motherfuckers will kill anyone not just like them for a buck and a shot at a seat at the jezus banquet in heaven and a chance to take the rapture elevator to the show. Fuck all christians like Rome did. Throw you to the lions you murdering bastards. peace dawg           Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:47:36 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message > news:qqsbs21301smt9qfe87mdkag7f58kg03br@4ax.com... > : Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > : > : >Christians seem to base their life on whatever the > pope interprets the > : >Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is > harmful to the planet as > : >their way of following God's will. > : > > : >Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become > Christian or we will kill > : >you type stuff. > : > > : >So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it > is not sanctioned > : >murder? > : > : Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what > Christianity is about. > : Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry > for your lack of > : knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit > loop detected"... > : believe me, it applies to your comments even more > than the windmill > : tilter. > : > : k Hickey > > Yeah k he should have said Catholics while referring > to the pope like that. You are absolutely right. > > That being said he is right on regarding his charge > that the stupid christian motherfuckers will kill > anyone not just like them for a buck and a shot at a > seat at the jezus banquet in heaven and a chance to > take the rapture elevator to the show. > > Fuck all christians like Rome did. Throw you to the > lions you murdering bastards. > > > > peace > dawg > > Amen. Bill             Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:03:53 From: Arnold Walker Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:csHxh.71390$qO4.52205@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: >> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message >> news:qqsbs21301smt9qfe87mdkag7f58kg03br@4ax.com... >> : Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> : >> : >Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >> : >Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet >> as >> : >their way of following God's will. >> : > >> : >Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will >> kill >> : >you type stuff. >> : > >> : >So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >> : >murder? >> : >> : Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. >> : Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of >> : knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... >> : believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill >> : tilter. >> : >> : k Hickey >> >> Yeah k he should have said Catholics while referring to the pope like >> that. You are absolutely right. >> >> That being said he is right on regarding his charge that the stupid >> christian motherfuckers will kill anyone not just like them for a buck >> and a shot at a seat at the jezus banquet in heaven and a chance to take >> the rapture elevator to the show. >> >> Fuck all christians like Rome did. Throw you to the lions you murdering >> bastards. >> >> >> >> peace >> dawg > Amen. > Bill Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion. Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim. dictators all over Africa accounting for several million killed .....were all christian leaders Jane Fonda ,Kerry and company were christian when they moved for a defunding of Veitnam, that led to 3million being killed in the 2wks after the war.Even got a war memorial to that effect in North Veitnam. Crusades???? seems that the Moors had overthrown Spain and were at the gates of Paris before that started. Might add they had converted all the Middle East and north Africa to muslim at the tip of a sword. Hell .....hitler ,Stalin,and 2 dozen other worse in history figures that were less than christian. Maybe you should rethink your case........ It was muslim pirates that extorted much of Europe over shipping rights in the Med. and Ivory coast. They made the mistake of "billing" the newly formed US .....the founding fathers decided the $80,000 was better spent. Forming the US Navy and in another couple years formed the US ines when tactics agianst the pirates changed. And your entire line sounds unnerving near Lincoln vrs. the Copperheads in the Civil War.That republican had low poll rating ,too.And a mountain of Copperhead (Democrat) critics rooting for the rebels.Seems most presidents that did what is good for the poeple have low poll ratings. Might be the reason many like Kerry and Clinton has changed position with every poll change. Has you getting good ks on the polls ,but blowing in the wind on any stand or value. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----               Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:15:36 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net > wrote: >Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion. >Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim. Its generally transliterated as Mao and no, he didn't say that. You can't read and you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. And when it is all said and done, it will be a close call whether organized religion was ever a net positive or negative for mankind. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...                 Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:40:19 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote: >On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker" ><arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote: > >>Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion. >>Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim. > >Its generally transliterated as Mao and no, he didn't say that. You >can't read and you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. > >And when it is all said and done, it will be a close call whether >organized religion was ever a net positive or negative for mankind. Apparently the anonymous "deputy" and his buddy Bill don't so much have a problem with organized religion as the believers themselves. In fact, it seems to me like they've probably crossed the line to bona fide "terroristic threat" language. Should be interesting. At any rate, Jesus hisownself wasn't a big fan of overly organized religion either. Basically, to have a problem with true Christianity, you'd have to disagree with something Christ said - otherwise the problem's gonna be with poor execution. There have certainly been some whackos in every group ever formed, but the amount of under-the-radar relief work that most churches do is impressive, but apparently not as newsworthy as the occasional pervert priest. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                   Date: 06 Feb 2007 13:31:35 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message : Apparently the anonymous "deputy" and his buddy Bill don't so much : have a problem with organized religion as the believers themselves. : In fact, it seems to me like they've probably crossed the line to bona : fide "terroristic threat" language. Should be interesting. : : At any rate, Jesus hisownself wasn't a big fan of overly organized : religion either. <drivel snipped > If you had any clue as to how your jexus was concocted you would be human but instead you are a brainwashed little motherfucker bent on bringing Armageddon to the world. Fuck you christian. Hope you get your traitor bike selling ass flattened on the road by a truck. You are on the side of the murdering motherfuckers and need the same end as the murders dish out. peace dawg                     Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:12:51 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > If you had any clue as to how your jexus was concocted > you would be human but instead you are a brainwashed > little motherfucker bent on bringing Armageddon to the > world. Fuck you christian. Hope you get your traitor > bike selling ass flattened on the road by a truck. You > are on the side of the murdering motherfuckers and need > the same end as the murders dish out. Valium can be your friend! Valium *really* needs to be your friend! SMH                       Date: 06 Feb 2007 22:59:43 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Stephen Harding wrote: > Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > >> If you had any clue as to how your jexus was concocted you would be >> human but instead you are a brainwashed little motherfucker bent on >> bringing Armageddon to the world. Fuck you christian. Hope you get >> your traitor bike selling ass flattened on the road by a truck. You >> are on the side of the murdering motherfuckers and need the same end >> as the murders dish out. > > Valium can be your friend! > > Valium *really* needs to be your friend! > > > SMH AAAH, The benefits of cross posting. Bill                         Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:31:54 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Stephen Harding wrote: >> Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: >> >>> If you had any clue as to how your jexus was concocted you would be >>> human but instead you are a brainwashed little motherfucker bent on >>> bringing Armageddon to the world. Fuck you christian. Hope you get >>> your traitor bike selling ass flattened on the road by a truck. You >>> are on the side of the murdering motherfuckers and need the same end >>> as the murders dish out. >> >> Valium can be your friend! >> >> Valium *really* needs to be your friend! >> >> SMH > >AAAH, >The benefits of cross posting. Yeah, I think that guy would last about 10 minutes on a bicycle. He'd go off on some citizen in an SUV who'd run him over in front of 20 witnesses who (if they'd heard the exchange) would swear he jumped in front of the SUV twelve times. But I always just ignore the anonymous wimps. If they had stones, they'd use their name - otherwise, their opinion is just like a foul breeze (one I haven't bothered to read/sniff, BTW). k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                       Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:36:49 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "Stephen Harding" <smharding16@msn.com > wrote in message news:D10yh.4284$FM3.657@trndny06... : : Valium can be your friend! : : Valium *really* needs to be your friend! : : : SMH This is exactly what the rightwing fucktards want, to sedate you while they steal everything you have and sell you into slavery. The drug pushers own the government and advertise for their tranquilizers on TV in case you have a problem with them raping your rights, killing your kids, enslaving you to debt and making the entire free world despise you Time to put these fucking neocons on trial and let them take the tranks to help them deal with those christian pedophiles prison. SMH your terrorist supporting fucktard go OD on your friend cause tranks are no friend of mine. peace dawg                         Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:26:46 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? > Time to put these fucking neocons on trial and let them Take a deep breath and tell us on what charges? Just as no one can have you arrested for being totally stupid you can't just put someone on trial for no reason                         Date: 06 Feb 2007 18:14:48 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > "Stephen Harding" <smharding16@msn.com> wrote in > : > : Valium can be your friend! > : > : Valium *really* needs to be your friend! > This is exactly what the rightwing fucktards want, to > sedate you while they steal everything you have and > sell you into slavery. The drug pushers own the No doubt a political plank of the Republican party! > government and advertise for their tranquilizers on TV > in case you have a problem with them raping your > rights, killing your kids, enslaving you to debt and > making the entire free world despise you. And damn, those Canadians drag their feet in providing us with *generic* drugs that would more cheaply allow our government to enslave, kill and rape! Dang Canucks! > Time to put these fucking neocons on trial and let them > take the tranks to help them deal with those christian > pedophiles prison. Yeah! Death to neocons and to prison for Christians! > SMH your terrorist supporting fucktard go OD on your > friend cause tranks are no friend of mine. No "tranks" for the masses! You tell'em! SMH                   Date: 06 Feb 2007 04:13:46 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker" >> <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote: >> >>> Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion. >>> Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim. >> Its generally transliterated as Mao and no, he didn't say that. You >> can't read and you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. >> >> And when it is all said and done, it will be a close call whether >> organized religion was ever a net positive or negative for mankind. > > Apparently the anonymous "deputy" and his buddy Bill don't so much > have a problem with organized religion as the believers themselves. > In fact, it seems to me like they've probably crossed the line to bona > fide "terroristic threat" language. Should be interesting. I was merely hypothesizing. My opinion is just that organized religion is a waste of time. I'll do my religion at the top of a hard earned mountain top. > > At any rate, Jesus hisownself wasn't a big fan of overly organized > religion either. Basically, to have a problem with true Christianity, > you'd have to disagree with something Christ said - otherwise the > problem's gonna be with poor execution. There have certainly been > some whackos in every group ever formed, but the amount of > under-the-radar relief work that most churches do is impressive, but > apparently not as newsworthy as the occasional pervert priest. Wow. I actually have to agree with you on that one. It is kind of silly for people to be squabbling over the finer points of religion if they all resolve to believing in Christ. Baptists, Protestant, and Catholic all have basically the same goals, but different interpretation. Why fight? Bill Baka > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame                     Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:39:17 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker" >>> <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion. >>>> Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim. >>> Its generally transliterated as Mao and no, he didn't say that. You >>> can't read and you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. >>> >>> And when it is all said and done, it will be a close call whether >>> organized religion was ever a net positive or negative for mankind. >> >> Apparently the anonymous "deputy" and his buddy Bill don't so much >> have a problem with organized religion as the believers themselves. >> In fact, it seems to me like they've probably crossed the line to bona >> fide "terroristic threat" language. Should be interesting. > >I was merely hypothesizing. My opinion is just that organized religion >is a waste of time. I'll do my religion at the top of a hard earned >mountain top. Bill, are you backing away from your terroristic threats about blowing up houses of worship full of Christians and/or Muslims? I think "hypothesizing" about things like that can get you a LOT of attention that I'm guessing you probably aren't looking for. >> At any rate, Jesus hisownself wasn't a big fan of overly organized >> religion either. Basically, to have a problem with true Christianity, >> you'd have to disagree with something Christ said - otherwise the >> problem's gonna be with poor execution. There have certainly been >> some whackos in every group ever formed, but the amount of >> under-the-radar relief work that most churches do is impressive, but >> apparently not as newsworthy as the occasional pervert priest. > >Wow. I actually have to agree with you on that one. It is kind of silly >for people to be squabbling over the finer points of religion if they >all resolve to believing in Christ. Baptists, Protestant, and Catholic >all have basically the same goals, but different interpretation. >Why fight? I don't. There's way too much in common - no one's got all the details right - that's pretty clear. Our church has regular cross-demonimational relief efforts (like sending teams from the area to rebuild homes in New Orleans or sponsoring another organization that's caring for 600 AIDS orphans in South Africa). k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                       Date: 06 Feb 2007 13:36:22 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? ----- Original Message ----- From: "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > : : Bill, are you backing away from your terrorist threats about blowing : up houses of worship full of Christians and/or Muslims? I think : "hypothesizing" about things like that can get you a LOT of attention : that I'm guessing you probably aren't looking for. : Listen to me you little fucktard with a pepper up your bible thumpin ass. Your traitor president and the stupid kids in the military who do not know any better are killing buildings full of people today in Iraq. Fuck you since you support that murdering bastards. You need the same shit you dish out and I am sure you will find it you neocon piece of bible thumpin trailer trash. I want the president and his cabal of traitors in the Whitehouse brought to justice. Fuck you and jezus too. peace dawg                         Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:10:28 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > Listen to me you little fucktard with a pepper up your > bible thumpin ass. Your traitor president and the > stupid kids in the military who do not know any better > are killing buildings full of people today in Iraq. > Fuck you since you support that murdering bastards. You > need the same shit you dish out and I am sure you will > find it you neocon piece of bible thumpin trailer > trash. I want the president and his cabal of traitors > in the Whitehouse brought to justice. Fuck you and > jezus too. > > > peace > dawg Got all the PC buzz words. "bible thumpin", "murdering", "fucktard", "military", "neocon", "Whitehouse", "jezus". All finishing up with "peace"!!! Someone seems to think they've found the path to world harmony. "Dumbya" indeed! SMH                       Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:52:35 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> k Hickey wrote: >>> Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:03:53 -0600, "Arnold Walker" >>>> <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let's see .....you saying Meo was christian when he wiped out 40milliion. >>>>> Muslims don't have a death wish for all non Muslim. >>>> Its generally transliterated as Mao and no, he didn't say that. You >>>> can't read and you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. >>>> >>>> And when it is all said and done, it will be a close call whether >>>> organized religion was ever a net positive or negative for mankind. >>> Apparently the anonymous "deputy" and his buddy Bill don't so much >>> have a problem with organized religion as the believers themselves. >>> In fact, it seems to me like they've probably crossed the line to bona >>> fide "terroristic threat" language. Should be interesting. >> I was merely hypothesizing. My opinion is just that organized religion >> is a waste of time. I'll do my religion at the top of a hard earned >> mountain top. > > Bill, are you backing away from your terroristic threats about blowing > up houses of worship full of Christians and/or Muslims? I think > "hypothesizing" about things like that can get you a LOT of attention > that I'm guessing you probably aren't looking for. I'm not advocating it but it would be interesting to see how many nut jobs would pay for an express ride to heaven. > >>> At any rate, Jesus hisownself wasn't a big fan of overly organized >>> religion either. Basically, to have a problem with true Christianity, >>> you'd have to disagree with something Christ said - otherwise the >>> problem's gonna be with poor execution. There have certainly been >>> some whackos in every group ever formed, but the amount of >>> under-the-radar relief work that most churches do is impressive, but >>> apparently not as newsworthy as the occasional pervert priest. >> Wow. I actually have to agree with you on that one. It is kind of silly >> for people to be squabbling over the finer points of religion if they >> all resolve to believing in Christ. Baptists, Protestant, and Catholic >> all have basically the same goals, but different interpretation. >> Why fight? > > I don't. There's way too much in common - no one's got all the > details right - that's pretty clear. Our church has regular > cross-demonimational relief efforts (like sending teams from the area > to rebuild homes in New Orleans or sponsoring another organization > that's caring for 600 AIDS orphans in South Africa). OK, good for your church. If all of them did as you mention and not just feed the Vatican things might be a little better. Bill Baka > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame         Date: 04 Feb 2007 18:55:50 From: adm Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Christianity = delusion (for that matter, substitue any other organised religion for "Christianity" - we are an equal opportunities debunker) Fruit loops are plentiful these days - and gaining power for some strange reason Any arguments ? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message news:qqsbs21301smt9qfe87mdkag7f58kg03br@4ax.com... > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >>Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >>Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as >>their way of following God's will. >> >>Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill >>you type stuff. >> >>So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >>murder? > > Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. > Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of > knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... > believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill > tilter. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame           Date: 04 Feb 2007 22:18:29 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? adm wrote: > Christianity = delusion > > (for that matter, substitue any other organised religion for > "Christianity" - we are an equal opportunities debunker) > > Fruit loops are plentiful these days - and gaining power for some strange > reason > > Any arguments ? Not from me. More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause. 1. Romans killing Christians. Pushy bastards, those Christians. 2. The Crusades 3. The Spanish Inquisition 4. Our very own witch hunt, "Burn em at the stake!". 5. Muslims versus everybody That's just the short list. Bill Baka > > "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message > news:qqsbs21301smt9qfe87mdkag7f58kg03br@4ax.com... >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as >>> their way of following God's will. >>> >>> Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill >>> you type stuff. >>> >>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >>> murder? >> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. >> Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of >> knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... >> believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill >> tilter. >> >> k Hickey >> Habanero Cycles >> http://www.habcycles.com >> Home of the $795 ti frame > >         Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:18:53 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as >> their way of following God's will. >> >> Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill >> you type stuff. >> >> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >> murder? > > Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. I'm not stupid enough to believe the crap the comes out of religion of any kind and definitely don't read the fiction book known as the Bible. Are you one of those fruits who claims to be "Born again?". I already have you pegged as a Republican. Bill Baka > Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of > knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... > believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill > tilter. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame           Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:58:48 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as >>> their way of following God's will. >>> >>> Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill >>> you type stuff. >>> >>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >>> murder? >> >> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. > >I'm not stupid enough to believe the crap the comes out of religion of >any kind and definitely don't read the fiction book known as the Bible. That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have the first idea about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't stop you from spouting opinions about it though - kind of like someone coming into the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually having been near a bicycle. >Are you one of those fruits who claims to be "Born again?". >I already have you pegged as a Republican. I'm more of an independent, but do register GOP so I can vote in the priies. And yup, I'm a "born again Christian", though I thought "fruit" was a term that applied to someone's sexual preference. >> Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of >> knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... >> believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill >> tilter. Yeah, what I said. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame             Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:05:46 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? ----- Original Message ----- From: "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > : That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have the first idea : about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't stop you from : spouting opinions about it though - kind of like someone coming into : the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually having been near a : bicycle. : Who need to know the doctrines when the bible ways "you will know them by their works". Any fool can see that christian motherfuckers like you elected bush to kill 650,000 innocent Iraqi citizens just to steal their oil. Enough said asshole. You and your christian buddies are all murdering scum even though you are too scared to join the military and do it yourselves it is still YOUR DOING MURDERING SACK OF blessings. When you are raptured can I have your bike? peace dawg               Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:08:13 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? > : That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have > the first idea > : about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't > stop you from > : spouting opinions about it though - kind of like > someone coming into > : the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually > having been near a > : bicycle. > : > Who need to know the doctrines when the bible ways "you > will know them by their works". Any fool can see that Correct so if you see "christians" not acting Christ like then by your own logic they can not be true Christians. Does calling myself a vegetarian make me one? Or is it my actions? If I call myself a Catholic but use birth control, think the pope is an out of touch nut and have had 5 divorces am I really a Catholic? What if I say I'm Muslim who eats pork and gets drunk? > christian motherfXXXXs like you elected bush to kill > 650,000 innocent Iraqi citizens just to steal their > oil. Enough said aXXhole. You and your christian <sigh > First off I don't think we have killed any where near that many people. BTW how many were being killed each year BEFORE we went in. Second if we wanted their oil we'd been better off doing like the French and Germans, just trade it for things they could kill each other. > When you are raptured can I have your bike? Sure, you'll have 3.5 years to really enjoy it.               Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:48:22 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> > : That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have > the first idea > : about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't > stop you from > : spouting opinions about it though - kind of like > someone coming into > : the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually > having been near a > : bicycle. > : > Who need to know the doctrines when the bible ways "you > will know them by their works". Any fool can see that > christian motherfuckers like you elected bush to kill > 650,000 innocent Iraqi citizens just to steal their > oil. Enough said asshole. You and your christian > buddies are all murdering scum even though you are too > scared to join the military and do it yourselves it is > still YOUR DOING MURDERING SACK OF blessings. > > When you are raptured can I have your bike? > > > peace > dawg > > My thoughts exactly, although I might have toned it down a tad. Bill Baka                 Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:12:16 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:WsHxh.71391: > Who need to know the doctrines when the bible ways "you : > will know them by their works". Any fool can see that : > christian motherfuckers like you elected bush to kill : > 650,000 innocent Iraqi citizens just to steal their : > oil. Enough said asshole. You and your christian : > buddies are all murdering scum even though you are too : > scared to join the military and do it yourselves it is : > still YOUR DOING MURDERING SACK OF blessings. : > : > When you are raptured can I have your bike? : > : > : > peace : > dawg : > : > : My thoughts exactly, although I might have toned it down a tad. : Bill Baka I have no patients left for christian traitors hell bent on destroying the earth so they can prompt Armageddon along. Someone needs to start putting these assholes down in the mega-churches where they worship and give them an early send off for the jexus banquet in the sky. Maybe then we can have some peace here on earth. So long as the murdering christian warmongers give support to people like bu$h , chenney and the cabal of war criminals in Washington they deserve the same traitors reward as the war criminals at the top of their heap. peace dawg                   Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:43:55 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" <Deputyy_Dumbyaa_Dawg@whiteehouuse.gov > wrote: >Someone needs to start putting these assholes down in >the mega-churches where they worship and give them an >early send off for the jexus banquet in the sky. Maybe >then we can have some peace here on earth. > >So long as the murdering christian warmongers.... <snipped the rest of the pointless rant > Is it just me, or did everyone else's irony meter just peg out? The anonymous poster "Deptuty" reminds me of a redneck I met in KY once - talking about meeting the wife of a government official who was sent down to set up bussing to force integration of the schools. Out of his mouth - in one sentence - came "If I had a gun, I woulda pulled it out and shot her dead right there in the checkout line 'cuz I don't want my kid goin' to school with no n.....s 'cuz they're dangerous". Or maybe I've just missed the "Church of Murdering Warmongers" in the Sunday Spirituality section in the paper. Bet they've got lively music at least. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                     Date: 06 Feb 2007 04:04:27 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" <Deputyy_Dumbyaa_Dawg@whiteehouuse.gov> wrote: > >> Someone needs to start putting these assholes down in >> the mega-churches where they worship and give them an >> early send off for the jexus banquet in the sky. Maybe >> then we can have some peace here on earth. >> >> So long as the murdering christian warmongers.... > > <snipped the rest of the pointless rant> > > Is it just me, or did everyone else's irony meter just peg out? > > The anonymous poster "Deptuty" reminds me of a redneck I met in KY > once - talking about meeting the wife of a government official who was > sent down to set up bussing to force integration of the schools. > > Out of his mouth - in one sentence - came "If I had a gun, I woulda > pulled it out and shot her dead right there in the checkout line 'cuz > I don't want my kid goin' to school with no n.....s 'cuz they're > dangerous". > > Or maybe I've just missed the "Church of Murdering Warmongers" in the > Sunday Spirituality section in the paper. Bet they've got lively > music at least. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame Well, it isn't me. I can make a complete sentence. Bill Baka How about we just start to ignore the super cross posts?                   Date: 06 Feb 2007 00:54:20 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:WsHxh.71391: > Who need to know the doctrines when > the bible ways "you > : > will know them by their works". Any fool can see > that > : > christian motherfuckers like you elected bush to > kill > : > 650,000 innocent Iraqi citizens just to steal their > : > oil. Enough said asshole. You and your christian > : > buddies are all murdering scum even though you are > too > : > scared to join the military and do it yourselves it > is > : > still YOUR DOING MURDERING SACK OF blessings. > : > > : > When you are raptured can I have your bike? > : > > : > > : > peace > : > dawg > : > > : > > : My thoughts exactly, although I might have toned it > down a tad. > : Bill Baka > > > I have no patients left for christian traitors hell > bent on destroying the earth so they can prompt > Armageddon along. > > Someone needs to start putting these assholes down in > the mega-churches where they worship and give them an > early send off for the jexus banquet in the sky. Maybe > then we can have some peace here on earth. > > So long as the murdering christian warmongers give > support to people like bu$h , chenney and the cabal of > war criminals in Washington they deserve the same > traitors reward as the war criminals at the top of > their heap. > > > peace > dawg > > Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. Never gonna happen though. Bill Baka                     Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:26:46 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? > Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. > Never gonna happen though. > Bill Baka And let me guess you support harsher penalties for those convicted of 'hate crimes', right?                       Date: 08 Feb 2007 00:45:25 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam wrote: >> Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. >> Never gonna happen though. >> Bill Baka > > And let me guess you support harsher penalties for those convicted of 'hate > crimes', right? > > No. I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy with no use for religious zealots. Bill Baka                     Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:44:43 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. >Never gonna happen though. >Bill Baka So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? Just want to get it on record. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                       Date: 06 Feb 2007 13:45:05 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message : So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? : Just want to get it on record. Hey fucktarded little hickey on the end of my dick. Your president is murdering thousands of people and sending our military to death in the name of America. How do you feel about supporting such a murdering fuck? Oh you gonna tell the teacher on us crybaby. I would expect nothing less of a little chickenhawk whining christian asswipe. If you are so positive about your president how come you aint riding your fucking bike in bagdad instead of taunting people who actually believe in doing what jezus maybe said. Bible thumping hypocrite piece of shit. Talking like you can move someone to the top of the terrorist list is real tough duche bag. If the assholes in the government cant get their eyes off the oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think they give a fuck about the 200 million americans that want bush in the slamer and your fuckin ass on the street as a greese spot? peace dawg                         Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:26:46 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? > oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill him. He will be killed and the cave he's killed in will be blown up. If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes tyr and hero for his cause. His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him. Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his subordinates? Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be found even with a multimillion dollar reward on his head can't get out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to rally his troops? I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the tapes we are hearing. After all its the FBI saying how each tape is really him.                           Date: 08 Feb 2007 07:26:06 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >> oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think > We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill him. Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > He will be killed and the cave he's killed in will be blown up. Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates, many of them have just been killed and their bodies displayed. > to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes tyr and hero for his cause. Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will > just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him. We'll see... > Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his subordinates? It aint that way. > Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be found even with a multimillion > dollar reward on his head can't get out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to > rally his troops? Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone guessing. Rabid fanatics like that dont need cassette tapes with speeches. He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11 > I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the tapes we are hearing. Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory. > After all its the FBI saying how each tape is really him. No it isnt.                             Date: 07 Feb 2007 22:04:55 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>> oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think > >> We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we >> kill him. > > Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. Simple Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs. He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs to keep the people in fear. By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't going to make a political come back. >> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, > > Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates, > many of them have just been killed and their bodies displayed. Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced. They were not the brains and political leader of the movement. > >> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. > > Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. did that. >> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes >> tyr and hero for his cause. > > Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. See above >> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will >> just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him. > > We'll see... We have been seeing have we not? >> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his >> subordinates? > > It aint that way. Sure it is. How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes? We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear. >> Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be found >> even with a multimillion dollar reward on his head can't get out a >> cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to rally his troops? > > Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone guessing. > > Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes with speeches. Sure they do. Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics. With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade from the fight. > He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11 yes he did, we just weren't listening. >> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the >> tapes we are hearing. > > Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory. But you do have to wonder don't you? Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips and is so st that the US, UK, and others can't find him but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes? > >> After all its the FBI saying how each tape is really him. > > No it isnt. >                               Date: 08 Feb 2007 10:22:29 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>> oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think >>> We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill him. >> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > Simple We'll see... > Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect Neither is bin laden. > who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs. Neither does bin laden. > He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs So did bin laden. > to keep the people in fear. So did bin laden. > By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't going to make a political > come back. Just as true of bin laden. >>> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, >> Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates, >> many of them have just been killed and their bodies displayed. > Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced. Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys. > They were not the brains and political leader of the movement. Pity about Saddam. >>> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. >> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > did that. Nope. >>> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes tyr and hero for his >>> cause. >> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > See above See above. >>> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will >>> just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him. >> We'll see... > We have been seeing have we not? Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent. Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways. >>> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his subordinates? >> It aint that way. > Sure it is. No it aint. > How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes? Fuck all. > We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear. Pity that isnt obtained that way. >>> Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be found even with a multimillion >>> dollar reward on his head can't get >>> out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to rally his troops? >> Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone guessing. >> Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes with speeches. > Sure they do. You clearly dont know any of them. > Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics. You clearly dont know any of them. > With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade from the fight. You clearly dont know any of them. The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes. In spades with Afghanistan. >> He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11 > yes he did, we just weren't listening. No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches. >>> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the tapes we are hearing. >> Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory. > But you do have to wonder don't you? Nope, not when he has gone out of his way to rub the west's nose in the fact that he aint dead yet. > Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips You dont know that is true anymore. > and is so st that the US, UK, and others can't find him Thats completely trivial to do if you dont do a damned thing. > but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes? Because thats the best way to ensure that he cant be found. >>> After all its the FBI saying how each tape is really him. >> No it isnt.                                 Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:22:58 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>> oil long enough to catch bin laden what makes you think > >>>> We will >>>>> never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill >>>>> him. > >>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > >> Simple > >>>>> > We'll see... > >> Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect > > >>>>> Neither is bin laden. Yes he is. Do a little research on his teaching on Wahhabism. He's like a Jim Jones, if you are too young to remember that name try David Korish. People follow HIM first, then his teachings. > >> who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs. > >> > > Neither does bin laden. See above. >> He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs > > >> So did bin laden. Nope. If that was true now that he's hiding in a cave his power would fail. >> to keep the people in fear. > > So did bin laden. What people are following him due to fear? > >> By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't > >> going to make a political >> come back. > > Just as true of bin laden. Nope, killing him would 'lift him to a higher plane'. > >>>> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, > >>>> >>> Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates, >>>> >>> many of them have just been killed and their bodies displayed. > >> >>>> Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced. > >>>> > Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys. Running away again I see. Be a man and stand up for what you believe. Ooops sorry you can't because it falls like a house of cards when faced with facts. > >> They were not the brains and political leader of the movement. > > Pity > >> about Saddam. Yes it was. He should still be fighting Iran with the US providing support to both sides. I tried to persuade those in power at the time of the beauty of this but they were like you, closed mined bigots, and would hear NOTHING that involved any kind of support to Iran. Thank about all the good would have come from it. We would have provided jobs for US workers making weapons, had cheap oil coming from Iran AND Iraq and all the Islamic nut cases would have been there killing each other and not bothering us. Oh well, no use crying about spilled milk. > >>>> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. > >>> > >>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > >> did that. > > Nope. Yep. > >>>> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes > >>>> tyr and hero for his >>>> cause. > >>> Have fun explaining what > >>>> happened to Saddam. > >> See above > > See above. See above. > >>>> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he will > >>>> >>>> just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking > >>>> him. > >>> We'll see... > >> We have been seeing have we not? > > > >>>> Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent. Have you been getting msg from him that the rest of us haven't? > > Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways. How? You don't make hits like we have been making w/o some VERY good intel. And you don't get intel like that from low level peons. > >>>> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill > >>>> his subordinates? > >>> It aint that way. > >> Sure it is. > > No it > >>>> aint. Yes, it is <sticking out my tongue > yhann (hey, acting childish can be fun. is that why you do it?) > >> How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes? > > Fuck > >> all. OOO, another of your famous come backs. Now are you going to pout? > >> We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear. > > Pity > >> that isnt obtained that way. I can tell you have a vast knowledge in the field of intelligence. I bet you had a secret decoder ring as a kid and today you have a "special" hat made of aluminum foil that either allows you hear things others can or protects your brain. > >>>> Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be > >>>> found even with a multimillion >>>> dollar reward on his head can't > >>>> get >>>> out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a regular basis to > >>>> rally his troops? > >>> Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone > >>>> guessing. > >>> Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes > >>>> with speeches. > >> Sure they do. > > You clearly don't know any of > >>>> them. No and its too bad. I could use the money I could get by turning them in. > >> Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics. > > You clearly > >> don't know any of them. Repeating yourself again. > >> With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade > >> from the fight. > > You clearly don't know any of them. Do I hear the sounds of someone running away? > The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes. And what got them going BEFORE that happened? > > In spades with Afghanistan. And what got them going BEFORE that happened? > >>> He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11 > >> yes he did, we just >>> weren't listening. > > No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches. So you admit that those tapes we have been told are him have be produced by the FBI. You have now admitted that your are an intelligence AND that the tapes of binny boy's speeches are not him because he does not make speeches. Either he makes speeches and we hear them or he doesn't and the tapes are fake. Which is it? > >>>> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the > >>>> tapes we are hearing. > >>> Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory. > >> > >>>> But you do have to wonder don't you? > > Nope, not when he has gone > >>>> out of his way to rub > the west's nose in the fact that he aint dead > >>>> yet. No one outside the intel services knows if he's dead or alive. If I were a betting man I'd give better than even odds binny boy is being eaten by worms in some cave right now. > >> Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips > > You don't > >> know that is true anymore. Even the public records show this is true. Millions upon millions are being paid to him for 'protection' from his attacks. > >> but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes? > > Because thats > >> the best way to ensure that he cant be found. bull, how much harder is it to pass along a video tape than an audio tape? How much more effect would it be to see a vid of him listening to the BBC world broadcast than some hard to hear tape of what we are told is him?                                   Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:53:37 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>> We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if we kill him. >>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. >>> Simple >> We'll see... >>> Saddam was not the leader of a religious sect >> Neither is bin laden. > Yes he is. No he isnt. > Do a little research on his teaching on Wahhabism. Dont need to. That doesnt make him a LEADER of anything. > He's like a Jim Jones, Nothing like. > if you are too young to remember that name Nope. > try David Korish. People follow HIM first, then his teachings. Didnt happen with bin laden. >>>> who united and controlled his followers using their religious beliefs. >> Neither does bin laden. > See above. See above. >>> He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs >> So did bin laden. > Nope. Yep. > If that was true now that he's hiding in a cave his power would fail. It has. He hasnt managed a damned thing since. >>> to keep the people in fear. >> So did bin laden. > What people are following him due to fear? Nope, his enemys are those kept in fear, just like Saddam. >>>> By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he wasn't going to make a political >>>> come back. >> Just as true of bin laden. > Nope, killing him would 'lift him to a higher plane'. Pig ignorant fantasy. You previously claimed that it was his money that produced the converts. You cant have it both ways. >>>>> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, >>>> Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his associates, many of them have just been >>>> killed and their bodies displayed. >>> Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who were easily replaced. >> Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys. > Running away again I see. Be a man and stand up for what you believe. Ooops sorry you can't > because it falls like a house of cards when faced with facts. Just another of your pig ignorant fantasys. >>> They were not the brains and political leader of the movement. >> Pity about Saddam. > Yes it was. He should still be fighting Iran with the US providing support to both sides. Not even possible for something like that to go on for that long. > I tried to persuade those in power at the time of the beauty of this And they noticed that you havent got a clue. > but they were like you, closed mined bigots, and would hear NOTHING that involved any kind of > support to Iran. > Thank about all the good would have come from it. We would have provided jobs for US workers > making weapons, had cheap oil coming from Iran AND Iraq and all the Islamic nut cases would have > been there killing each other and not bothering us. Just another of your pathetic little rabid drug crazed fantasys. > Oh well, no use crying about spilled milk. You could do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin. >>>> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. >>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. >>> did that. >> Nope. > Yep. Nope. >>>>> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes tyr and hero for his >>>>> cause. >>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. >>> See above >> See above. > See above. See above. >>>>> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he >>>>> will just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him. >>>> We'll see... >>> We have been seeing have we not? >> Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent. > Have you been getting msg from him that the rest of us haven't? Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim about intel. >> Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways. > How? Mostly by torturing those minions they have caught when they fucked over the Talibums very comprehensively indeed. > You don't make hits like we have been making w/o some VERY good intel. Yep, and thats not hard to get when you can torture those details out of those that get caught. Doesnt have to be minions either, some VERY senior people have split the beans, mostly those captured in afghanistan, pakistan and quite a bit of the middle east like yemen etc. > And you don't get intel like that from low level peons. Indeed, but they've got plenty of the high level people now. >>>>> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill his subordinates? >>>> It aint that way. >>> Sure it is. >> No it aint. > Yes, it is <sticking out my tongue> yhann (hey, acting childish can > be fun. is that why you do it?) Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes? >> Fuck all. > OOO, another of your famous come backs. Now are you going to pout? Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear. >> Pity that isnt obtained that way. > I can tell you have a vast knowledge in the field of intelligence. I bet you had a secret decoder > ring as a kid and today you have a "special" hat made of aluminum foil that either allows you hear > things others can or protects your brain. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>> Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be found even with a >>>>> multimillion dollar reward on his head can't get out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a >>>>> regular basis to rally his troops? >>>> Makes a lot more sense to just keep everyone guessing. >>>> Rabid fanatics like that don't need cassette tapes with speeches. >>> Sure they do. >> You clearly don't know any of them. > No and its too bad. I could use the money I could get by turning them in. >>>> Only a small number of them are true rabid fanatics. >> You clearly don't know any of them. > Repeating yourself again. Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ? >>> With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade from the fight. >> You clearly don't know any of them. > Do I hear the sounds of someone running away? Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys. >> The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes. > And what got them going BEFORE that happened? The US involvement in the first gulf war. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed how rabid bin laden was about any US troops in middle eastern countrys. In spades with Saudi. He was actually stupid enough to believe that he was all that was needed to keep Saddam out of Saudi. >> In spades with Afghanistan. > And what got them going BEFORE that happened? Repeating yourself again. >>>> He didnt bother with speeches even before 9/11 >>> yes he did, we just weren't listening. >> No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches. > So you admit that those tapes we have been told are him have be produced by the FBI. Nope, those arent speeches to gee his devotees up, they're just him making an obscene gesture in the general direction of the US and its allies. > You have now admitted that your are an intelligence AND that the tapes of binny boy's speeches are > not him because he does not make speeches. Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys. > Either he makes speeches and we hear them or he doesn't and the tapes are fake. Which is it? See above. >>>>> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing the tapes we are hearing. >>>> Mindlessly silly conspiracy theory. >>> But you do have to wonder don't you? >> Nope, not when he has gone out of his way to rub the west's nose in the fact that he aint dead >> yet. > No one outside the intel services knows if he's dead or alive. No one inside does either unless they have killed him since the last tape. And if they had, they'd be displaying his body if they had managed to leave enough pieces intact to be identifiable, just so they look like they arent too hopeless to catch him. > If I were a betting man I'd give better than even odds binny boy is being eaten by worms in some > cave right now. Have fun explaining the tapes. Yeah, yeah, the FBI is faking them to show that the US cant catch him. Yeah, right. >>> Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips >> You don't know that is true anymore. > Even the public records show this is true. Not since he was fucked over very comprehensively indeed in Afghanistan they dont. > Millions upon millions are being paid to him for 'protection' from his attacks. Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys. It was him spending heaps of his money in afghanistan. You dont know he's got anything left now. >>> but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes? >> Because thats the best way to ensure that he cant be found. > bull, how much harder is it to pass along a video tape than an audio tape? You have absolutely no idea about how desperate his circumstances are now. > How much more effect would it be to see a vid of him listening to the BBC world broadcast than > some hard to hear tape of what we are told is him? He may well have fuck all choice on that currently. He's clearly not been able to organise a damned thing since he got fucked over so comprehensively in Afghanistan and has to spend all his time hiding in some hole, just like Saddam ended up doing. Likely there isnt even any power in the hole.                                     Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:38:05 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>>>> We will never admit it if we "catch bin laden" nor will we admit if >>>>>>> we kill him. > >>>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > >>>>>>> >>>> Simple > >>> We'll see... > >>>> Saddam was not the leader of a >>>>>>> religious sect > >>> Neither is bin laden. > >> Yes he is. > > No he >>>>>>> isnt. I've had more intelligent debates with 5 year olds. At least they can use kid logic to support their arguments. >> Do a little research on his teaching on Wahhabism. > > Don't need to. >> That doesnt make him a LEADER of anything. > >> He's like a Jim Jones, > >> > Nothing like. Are you saying that binny boy isn't the leader of i'llequateyou > >> if you are too young to remember that name > > Nope. Try reading if you mind has failed you. > >> try David Korish. People follow HIM first, then his teachings. > > > >> Didnt happen with bin laden. the only difference binny boy doesn't seem to tell his people he is god or his direct messenger. > >>>>> who united and controlled his followers using their religious > >>>>> beliefs. > >>> Neither does bin laden.> >> See above. > > See above. does to. (let me guess, to be followed by a does not). Come on provide SOME kind of support for your rambling. > >>>> He was a thug who ruled a country by paying good money to other thugs > >>>> > >>> So did bin laden. > >> Nope. > > Yep. > >> If that was true now that he's hiding in a cave his power would fail. > > >> > It has. He hasnt managed a damned thing since. Seemed to have appointed new people to replace the ones we have killed. > >>>> to keep the people in fear. > >>> So did bin laden. > >> What people > >>>> are following him due to fear? > > Nope, his enemys are those kept in > >>>> fear, just like Saddam. Follow the thread here would you. we are talking about keeping followers. > >>>>> By showing the people that he was dead you showed them that he > >>>>> wasn't going to make a political >>>>> come back. > >>> Just as true > >>>>> of bin laden. > >> Nope, killing him would 'lift him to a higher > >>>>> plane'.> > Pig ignorant fantasy. > > You previously claimed that it > >>>>> was his money that produced the converts. Where did I say that? >>>>>> If we catch him he has a nice public trial, we are the US remember, > >>>>>> >>>>> Have fun explaining what has happened to so many of his >>>>>> associates, many of them have just been >>>>> killed and their bodies >>>>>> displayed. > >>>> Simple, they are nothing more than soldiers who >>>>>> were easily replaced. > >>> Just another of your pig ignorant >>>>>> fantasys. > >> Running away again I see. Be a man and stand up for >>>>>> what you believe. Ooops sorry you can't >> because it falls like a >>>>>> house of cards when faced with facts. > > Just another of your pig >>>>>> ignorant fantasys. Seeing as how you can't support anything you have said only post stupid statements it seems I'm right on target again. > >>>> They were not the brains and political leader of the movement. > >>> > >>>> Pity about Saddam. > >> Yes it was. He should still be fighting Iran > >>>> with the US providing support to both sides. > > Not even possible > >>>> for something like that to go on for that long. You don't have enough faith in human nature. >> I tried to persuade those in power at the time of the beauty of this > > >> And they noticed that you havent got a clue. Actually many of them thought it was a good idea but politically not possible. >> but they were like you, closed mined bigots, and would hear NOTHING that >> involved any kind of >> support to Iran. > >> Thank about all the good >> would have come from it. We would have provided jobs for US workers >> >> making weapons, had cheap oil coming from Iran AND Iraq and all the >> Islamic nut cases would have >> been there killing each other and not >> bothering us. > > Just another of your pathetic little rabid drug crazed >> fantasys. No, it was a good plan. > >> Oh well, no use crying about spilled milk. > > You could do the decent > >> thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin. Now my religion. > >>>>> to preach his msg and will be a magnet for even more nut cases. > > >>>>> >>>> Have fun explaining what happened to Saddam. > >>>> did that. > > >>>>> >>> Nope. > >> Yep. > > Nope. I bet you are fun to work with. > >>>>>> If we kill him and hold up his body for the world to see he becomes > >>>>>> tyr and hero for his >>>>>> cause. > >>>>> Have fun explaining > >>>>>> what happened to Saddam. > >>>> See above> >>> See above. > >> See > >>>>>> above. > > See above. Again not able to support your own thoughts . > >>>>>> His msg will be fewer and fewer and longer between each then he >>>>>> will just disappear. After we have sucked all the intel from tracking him. > >>>>> We'll see... > >>>> We have been seeing have we not? > >>> Nope, not on that silly claim you made we havent. > >> Have you been getting msg from him that the rest of us haven't? > > Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim about intel. The first, and therefore more major claim was number of his msg. See its called following the flow of a conversation. >>> Those that have been hunted down have been hunted down in other ways. > >>> >> How? > > Mostly by torturing those minions they have caught when > >>> they fucked over the Talibums very comprehensively indeed. Let me tell you something your liberal friends won't. Torture is the worse way to gather intel there is. People under torture will tell you what they think you want to hear to stop the torture. Read the history of the inquisition of how many people 'confessed'. >> You don't make hits like we have been making w/o some VERY good intel. > >> > Yep, and thats not hard to get when you can > torture those details out >> of those that get caught. Do a little research on the use of torture and gathering intel. > Doesnt have to be minions either, some VERY senior people> have split the > beans, mostly those captured in afghanistan, > pakistan and quite a bit of > the middle east like yemen etc. That's the way the intel game works. But, and I'll admit that I have no hard evidence to support it, I still think we are closer to binny boy than he thinks and are using his comms to gather intel. >>>>>> Ever wonder how we know just which house or car to blow up to kill >>>>>> his subordinates? > >>>>> It aint that way. > >>>> Sure it is. > >>> >>>>>> No it aint. > >> Yes, it is <sticking out my tongue> yhann (hey, >>>>>> acting childish can >> be fun. is that why you do it?) > > Never ever >>>>>> could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. At least I have enough sts to come up with different statements. >>>> How many of these people have been killed in specific strikes? > >>> >>>> Fuck all. > >> OOO, another of your famous come backs. Now are you >>>> going to pout? > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper >>>> bag. ahhhh, did I hurt your poor little feelings. If it will make you feel better you can now have a cookie. > >>>> We have intel on where they are and make that place disappear. > >>> > >>>> Pity that isnt obtained that way. > >> I can tell you have a vast > >>>> knowledge in the field of intelligence. I bet you had a secret > >>>> decoder >> ring as a kid and today you have a "special" hat made of > >>>> aluminum foil that either allows you hear >> things others can or > >>>> protects your brain. > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a > >>>> wet paper bag. BTW, why don't you tell me your experience in the intelligence field. >>>>>> Ever wonder how someone who is such a st person he can not be >>>>>> found even with a >>>>>> multimillion dollar reward on his head can't >>>>>> get out a cassette tapes with a speeches on a >>>>>> regular basis to >>>>>> rally his troops? > >>>>> Makes a lot more sense to just keep >>>>>> everyone guessing. > >>>>> Rabid fanatics like that don't need >>>>>> cassette tapes with speeches. > >>>> Sure they do. > >>> You clearly >>>>>> don't know any of them. > >> No and its too bad. I could use the >>>>>> money I could get by turning them in. > >>>>> Only a small number of >>>>>> them are true rabid fanatics. > >>> You clearly don't know any of >>>>>> them. > >> Repeating yourself again. > > Corse you never ever do >>>>>> anything like that yourself, eh ? Up to old tricks. >>>> With the rest if you don't keep rallying the troops they start to fade >>>> from the fight. > >>> You clearly don't know any of them. > >> Do I >>>> hear the sounds of someone running away? > > Just another of your >>>> pathetic little drug crazed fantasys. Not everyone uses drugs like you do. >>> The activitys of the US like the invasion of Iraq is all it takes. > >> >>> And what got them going BEFORE that happened? > > The US involvement in >>> the first gulf war. And the attacks before that were caused by? > Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed how rabid > bin laden > was about any US troops in middle eastern countrys. Look a little closer you will find he wants a Taliban type of government in each country around the world. You think having a Christian ran government is bad imagine living under the Taliban. > In spades with Saudi. He was actually stupid enough to believe > that he > was all that was needed to keep Saddam out of Saudi. Huh? He who? Binny boy? > >>> In spades with Afghanistan. > >> And what got them going BEFORE that > >>> happened? > > Repeating yourself again. > >>>>> He didnt bother with > >>> speeches even before 9/11 > >>>> yes he did, we just weren't > >>> listening. > >>> No he didnt. He doesnt make speeches. > >> So you > >>> admit that those tapes we have been told are him have be produced by > >>> the FBI. > > Nope, those arent speeches to gee his devotees up, > >>> they're just him > making an obscene gesture in the general direction > >>> of the US and its allies. Make up your mind, either you think he is making these speeches or someone else is. which is it. > >> You have now admitted that your are an intelligence AND that the tapes > >> of binny boy's speeches are >> not him because he does not make > >> speeches. > > Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed > >> fantasys. Just pointing how stupid you look with some of the ways you twist my statements. > >> Either he makes speeches and we hear them or he doesn't and the tapes > >> are fake. Which is it? > > See above. What, there's a ceiling up there. > >>>>>> I do and I wonder if he's dead now and we are the ones producing > >>>>>> the tapes we are hearing. > >>>>> Mindlessly silly conspiracy > >>>>>> theory. > >>>> But you do have to wonder don't you? > >>> Nope, not > >>>>>> when he has gone out of his way to rub the west's nose in the fact > >>>>>> that he aint dead >>> yet. > >> No one outside the intel services > >>>>>> knows if he's dead or alive. > > No one inside does either unless > >>>>>> they have killed him since the last tape. How can you be so sure that the last tape was his? The only 'proof' we have is the fact that the FBI, a branch of our intel services, says that it is his voice. If you were in the government and wanted to keep people thinking binny boy was alive wouldn't it be a great idea to have the government make tapes the have that very same government say those tapes are genuine. > And if they had, they'd be displaying his body if they had > managed to > leave enough pieces intact to be identifiable, > just so they look like > they arent too hopeless to catch him. Know what a tyr is? Heck seeing how you believe in Jesus I'd think the last thing you'd want us to do is kill binny boy. >> If I were a betting man I'd give better than even odds binny boy is being >> eaten by worms in some >> cave right now. > > Have fun explaining the >> tapes. > > Yeah, yeah, the FBI is faking them to show that the US cant >> catch him. > > Yeah, right. Read some history of the US intel service. They have done stranger things. Do a little research on the Glo Explorer. What has been declassified makes for some very interesting reading >>>> Here's a man with millions of dollars at his finger tips > >>> You >>>> don't know that is true anymore.> >> Even the public records show this >>>> is true. > > Not since he was fucked over very comprehensively indeed >>>> in Afghanistan they don't. Records show that millions upon millions of dollars are flowing out of Saudi Arabia into many accounts that have links to binny boy and others. >>>> but the best he can do is a few hard to hear tapes? > >>> Because thats >>>> the best way to ensure that he cant be found. > >> bull, how much >>>> harder is it to pass along a video tape than an audio tape? > > You >>>> have absolutely no idea about how desperate his circumstances are now. Answer the question. > >> How much more effect would it be to see a vid of him listening to the > >> BBC world broadcast than >> some hard to hear tape of what we are told > >> is him? > > He may well have fuck all choice on that currently. The point is he hasn't made a vid and that leads me to believe he isn't alive. > He's clearly not been able to organise a damned thing since he got > fucked over so comprehensively in Afghanistan and has to spend > all his > time hiding in some hole, just like Saddam ended up doing. Or maybe we are sucking up so much intel from him that we are able to prevent him from acting. Again read some history on actions we have prevented in the past with intel.                       Date: 06 Feb 2007 04:08:49 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. >> Never gonna happen though. >> Bill Baka > > So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? > Just want to get it on record. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame Isn't that what they are doing now? The Catholic--Christian---whatever has done it for 20 centuries. Iraq is a holy war, Catholic--etc--Americans against the heathen Muslims. We only 'care' about them for their oil anyway. Do you really think we would be there to impose Democracy on them if they had no oil. We still haven't gotten the conspirators of the 9/11 attack but, by God we are going to give them, TA-DA Democracy. Bill Baka                         Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:32:27 From: Mark Hickey Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote: >k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. >>> Never gonna happen though. >>> Bill Baka >> >> So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? >> Just want to get it on record. >> >> k Hickey >> Habanero Cycles >> http://www.habcycles.com >> Home of the $795 ti frame > >Isn't that what they are doing now? >The Catholic--Christian---whatever has done it for 20 centuries. >Iraq is a holy war, Catholic--etc--Americans against the heathen Muslims. >We only 'care' about them for their oil anyway. >Do you really think we would be there to impose Democracy on them if >they had no oil. We still haven't gotten the conspirators of the 9/11 >attack but, by God we are going to give them, TA-DA Democracy. >Bill Baka I didn't quite catch that Bill. You ARE advocating blowing up mosques and churches full of people going to worship, right? You still think that's a great idea, right? Just want to make sure I understand your position on that clearly. k Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame                           Date: 06 Feb 2007 13:49:11 From: Deputy Dumbya Dawg Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message : >Isn't that what they are doing now? : : I didn't quite catch that Bill. You ARE advocating blowing up mosques : and churches full of people going to worship, right? You still think : that's a great idea, right? : : Just want to make sure I understand your position on that clearly. You do realize that your government is blowing up mosques full of people in your name fucktard or do you? Your support for the president means you support blowing up people going to worship and you do realize that! Right christian bible thumping hypocrite? Little chicken hawk traitors like you are the ones driving the american death machine in Iraq and you want to point the finger at me. Fuck you. peace dawg                             Date: 06 Feb 2007 18:01:40 From: Stephen Harding Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote: > You do realize that your government is blowing up > mosques full of people in your name fucktard or do you? No I didn't. Do tell! > Your support for the president means you support > blowing up people going to worship and you do realize > that! Right christian bible thumping hypocrite? Little Says you. > chicken hawk traitors like you are the ones driving the > american death machine in Iraq and you want to point > the finger at me. Fuck you. Ahh, a new buzz word to add to the collection: "chicken hawk". You clearly know them all! You don't actually even need to think! Your gentle nature overwhelms us with empathy! SMH                           Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:49:31 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> k Hickey wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Blow up the churches and mosques when services are packing them in first. >>>> Never gonna happen though. >>>> Bill Baka >>> So Bill, you're advocating murdering people based on their religion? >>> Just want to get it on record. >>> >>> k Hickey >>> Habanero Cycles >>> http://www.habcycles.com >>> Home of the $795 ti frame >> Isn't that what they are doing now? >> The Catholic--Christian---whatever has done it for 20 centuries. >> Iraq is a holy war, Catholic--etc--Americans against the heathen Muslims. >> We only 'care' about them for their oil anyway. >> Do you really think we would be there to impose Democracy on them if >> they had no oil. We still haven't gotten the conspirators of the 9/11 >> attack but, by God we are going to give them, TA-DA Democracy. >> Bill Baka > > I didn't quite catch that Bill. You ARE advocating blowing up mosques > and churches full of people going to worship, right? You still think > that's a great idea, right? > > Just want to make sure I understand your position on that clearly. Birth control. Fertility inhibition or bombs, same end result. I go for number one. Bill Baka > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame > >             Date: 04 Feb 2007 23:36:35 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? k Hickey wrote: > Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: > >> k Hickey wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >>>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as >>>> their way of following God's will. >>>> >>>> Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill >>>> you type stuff. >>>> >>>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >>>> murder? >>> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. >> I'm not stupid enough to believe the crap the comes out of religion of >> any kind and definitely don't read the fiction book known as the Bible. > > That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have the first idea > about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't stop you from > spouting opinions about it though - kind of like someone coming into > the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually having been near a > bicycle. I obviously don't care. I still help people at random when I ride, do good deeds when possible, and no bullshit doctrine is going to run my life. Unlike the missing Ed Dolan I do have 5 bikes and 3 are ready to roll when I want. Does the Pope tell me to fix bikes for all the kids? Hardly. I do it sometimes because their parents won't bother. Is the kid a Christian? Who cares, since he is in need. Doctrines? Pfffft. My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. > >> Are you one of those fruits who claims to be "Born again?". >> I already have you pegged as a Republican. > > I'm more of an independent, but do register GOP so I can vote in the > priies. And yup, I'm a "born again Christian", though I thought > "fruit" was a term that applied to someone's sexual preference. In my view, "Born again" just alerts me to the Jesus freak. I get sick of so much time wasted on religion and living according to the rules of their particular form of Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, or whatever. > >>> Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of >>> knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"... >>> believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill >>> tilter. Religious people are hopeless. Bill Baka > > Yeah, what I said. > > k Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame               Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:08:12 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message news:76uxh.16425$ji1.6338@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > k Hickey wrote: >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> k Hickey wrote: >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >>>>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet >>>>> as their way of following God's will. >>>>> >>>>> Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will >>>>> kill you type stuff. >>>>> >>>>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >>>>> murder? >>>> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. >>> I'm not stupid enough to believe the crap the comes out of religion of >>> any kind and definitely don't read the fiction book known as the Bible. >> >> That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have the first idea >> about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't stop you from >> spouting opinions about it though - kind of like someone coming into >> the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually having been near a >> bicycle. > > I obviously don't care. I still help people at random when I ride, do good > deeds when possible, and no bullshit doctrine is going to run my life. > Unlike the missing Ed Dolan I do have 5 bikes and 3 are ready to roll when > I want. Does the Pope tell me to fix bikes for all the kids? > Hardly. I do it sometimes because their parents won't bother. Is the kid a > Christian? Who cares, since he is in need. > Doctrines? > Pfffft. > My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the > weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the > money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A couple of quick examples: It teaches you need someone to stand between you and Christ (you have to confess your sins to the priest), you pray to people (y, Saint this or that), the believe that there have been many 'perfect' people (they call them popes. Also it teaches you can 'buy' and/or work your way into Heaven, to most true Christians would find this very close to blasphemy. True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following them then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are: Love God completely and love your neighbor as you love yourself. One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that point. As I have told many people talking about religions, any religion which has to use force to keep its people from hearing other preachings is most likely a false religion because a religion of a God that could make the universe can easily stand up to a few words or thoughts.                 Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:15:28 From: Bill Baka Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam wrote: > "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:76uxh.16425$ji1.6338@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... >> k Hickey wrote: >>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> k Hickey wrote: >>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the >>>>>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet >>>>>> as their way of following God's will. >>>>>> >>>>>> Total Bullshit. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will >>>>>> kill you type stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned >>>>>> murder? >>>>> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about. >>>> I'm not stupid enough to believe the crap the comes out of religion of >>>> any kind and definitely don't read the fiction book known as the Bible. >>> That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have the first idea >>> about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't stop you from >>> spouting opinions about it though - kind of like someone coming into >>> the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually having been near a >>> bicycle. >> I obviously don't care. I still help people at random when I ride, do good >> deeds when possible, and no bullshit doctrine is going to run my life. >> Unlike the missing Ed Dolan I do have 5 bikes and 3 are ready to roll when >> I want. Does the Pope tell me to fix bikes for all the kids? >> Hardly. I do it sometimes because their parents won't bother. Is the kid a >> Christian? Who cares, since he is in need. >> Doctrines? >> Pfffft. >> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the >> weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the >> money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. > > Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic church, > in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true teachings of > Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A couple of quick > examples: It teaches you need someone to stand between you and Christ (you > have to confess your sins to the priest), you pray to people (y, Saint > this or that), the believe that there have been many 'perfect' people (they > call them popes. The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. Also it teaches you can 'buy' and/or work your way into > Heaven, to most true Christians would find this very close to blasphemy. > > True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following them > then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are: Love God > completely and love your neighbor as you love yourself. You missed 60's and love, love, love. > > One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the people > don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust off our feet and > never visit them again. Its up to them at that point. As I have told many > people talking about religions, any religion which has to use force to keep > its people from hearing other preachings is most likely a false religion > because a religion of a God that could make the universe can easily stand up > to a few words or thoughts. Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war?? Bill Baka > >                   Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:18:29 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the >>> weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the >>> money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. >> >> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic >> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true >> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A >> couple of quick examples: It teaches you need someone to stand between >> you and Christ (you have to confess your sins to the priest), you pray to >> people (y, Saint this or that), the believe that there have been many >> 'perfect' people (they call them popes. > > The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many > decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be followed. Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following them >> then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are: Love God >> completely and love your neighbor as you love yourself. > > You missed 60's and love, love, love. Still a lot of hate there. Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color. >> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the >> people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust off >> our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that point. As I >> have told many people talking about religions, any religion which has to >> use force to keep its people from hearing other preachings is most likely >> a false religion because a religion of a God that could make the universe >> can easily stand up to a few words or thoughts. > > Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. > What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war?? All. The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people for a 'holy war' for control of the oil and the money it brings. The more money they have the faster they can force their religion on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist and death. As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to keep them following your religion then you are following a false religion. Do you follow my line of thought? (sorry I had to put one more follow in there)                     Date: 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 From: R.H. Allen Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam wrote: >>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the >>>> weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the >>>> money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. >>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic >>> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true >>> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the primacy of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated debate about it. >> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many >> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his primacy is seen to have been passed down by Christ himself and cannot be questioned. Certainly there are politics in the church -- how's that for understatement? -- but John Paul II, for example, made a significant number of Cardinals (including his eventual successor) unhappy by his actions on a fairly regular basis. As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... > IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be > followed. No. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible, but not impeccable. These words have a very specific meaning in this context, and they do NOT mean the Pope cannot make a mistake. Infallibility signifies the ability to declare, without error, a teaching that is the direct result of divine intervention, while impeccability signifies that one is free of sin. Therefore, it would be more correct to say that the Pope is God's messenger on Earth (or something along those lines). He is not infallible in everything he says and he is not without sin, therefore he is not perfect. Therefore, the only teachings of the Pope regarded as anything resembling "perfect" are those that fall under the category of infallible speech. This is a very rare event -- as I recall, there are only about a half-dozen occasions in the entire history of the Catholic church that a Pope has spoken infallibly, the last time being 1950. Thus, any good Catholic would tell you that NOTHING the last several Popes said was "perfect". > Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own > rules. Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules. That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can formally question some of the tenets of the church without being excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be questioned, and the details about how it works, but it's an involved enough process that I'm guessing the people you're talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not "officially" questioning the church.... :-)                       Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:31:42 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the >>>>> weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for >>>>> the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. >>>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic >>>> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true >>>> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. > > You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and > Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the primacy > of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated > debate about it. >>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many >>> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > > Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the > Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. > As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with > practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I dated one for a while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The rest looked at them as guidelines not rules. >> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. > > Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow > their own rules. Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not? I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside riage, use birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic? To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO. > > That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can formally > question some of the tenets of the church without being excommunicated. I > forget what it's called, what can be questioned, and the details about how > it works, but it's an involved enough process that I'm guessing the people > you're talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not "officially" > questioning the church.... :-) My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked them because they are world known and I know a little about their religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group.                         Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:31:28 From: R.H. Allen Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam wrote: > >>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many >>>> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the >> Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his > > If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be > kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings > on birth control, divorce and more. But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply sins that should be confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of England that she isn't the rightful heir to the throne. >> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with >> practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... > > Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all things (and confess their failures), or are actively lapsed and acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition but no longer actively practice. >>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow >> their own rules. > > Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, > chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not? Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of faith -- but I get your meaning. > I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been > talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside riage, use > birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic? I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines faith and culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go to church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite never going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus celebrate Diwali despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to fast during Ramadan. > My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked them > because they are world known and I know a little about their religion. My > point was and is you can't condemn a group based on actions of people who > are only claiming to be members of that group. That I agree with wholeheartedly. I didn't mean to sidetrack you, I only jumped in to correct some information I knew to be wide of the k....                           Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:38:06 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many >>>>> >>>>> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >>>>> >>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who >>>>> challenges the >>> Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be >>>>> debated, but his >> >> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% >>>>> of the US Catholics should be >> kicked out. They are openly thumbing >>>>> their noses at him and his teachings >> on birth control, divorce and >>>>> more. > > But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. >>>>> They're simply > sins that should be confessed and repented. >>>>> Challenging the Pope's > primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of >>>>> England that she isn't the > rightful heir to the throne. I see your point. But by confessing and not repenting are they not saying that they think the church, and by extension the Pope, are wrong? BTW, doing penitence is not the same as repenting. Repenting means you are doing penitence because you are sorry you did something NOT so you can be forgiven this time and be ready for the next. > >>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with > >>> >>> practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... >> >> Ask > >>> them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. > >>> > > Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all > >>> > things (and confess their failures), or are actively lapsed and > > >>> acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition but no > >>> longer > actively practice. The ones I'm talking about are the ones who go to mass, have confirmation for their kids and the like but regularly use birth control and do other things the church say are no-nos. These are the ones I call non-Catholic Catholics. If they are no longer actively practicing then I don't consider them former Catholics, i.e. not Catholics. >>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >>>> >>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't >>>> follow >>> their own rules. >> >> Which is my point. I'm telling you >>>> I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, >> chicken and fish. Now am I a >>>> vegetarian or not? > > Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism >>>> isn't a matter of faith > -- but I get your meaning. You can put in a religion and non-religious actions if you rather. >> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have >> been >> talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside >> riage, use >> birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a >> Catholic? > > I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines >> faith and > culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or > > another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go to > > church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other > > religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite never > > going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus celebrate Diwali > > despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to > > fast during Ramadan. People like that will sometimes claim to be a member of a religion but they usually just claim to believe in god.                             Date: 13 Feb 2007 16:05:08 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many decisions. It is the >>>>>> Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >>>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The >>>> nature of his primacy can be debated, but his >>> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be kicked out. They >>> are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. >> But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply sins that should be >> confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of >> England that she isn't the rightful heir to the throne. > I see your point. But by confessing and not repenting are they not > saying that they think the church, and by extension the Pope, are wrong? Nope, they're saying that they cant manage to be as good as is desirable, particularly on stuff like not being as charitable as they should, polite etc etc etc. And first world catholics dont confess that they sent their brats to a state school and not one run by that cult. Not sure what the cult expects them to do if they choose to ry someone outside the cult today, doubt they are expected to confess and repent anymore. In spades if they dont bother to eat fish every friday. > BTW, doing penitence is not the same as repenting. No one ever said it was. > Repenting means you are doing penitence because you are sorry you did something NOT so you can be > forgiven this time and be ready for the next. Its more complicated than that in that particular cult. You could even buy indulgences, and presumably still can. >>>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time >>>> with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... >>> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. >> Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all things (and confess their >> failures), or are actively lapsed and acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition >> but no longer actively practice. Most in fact are selective about the trivia they bother with, most obviously with eating fish on friday, sending their brats to schools run by the cult, birth control, etc etc etc and dont even bother to confess that stuff. Fuck all consider that the cult is the source of all wisdom anymore. Hordes of them have are very cynical about the sillier stuff their priest spouts in all but the worst of the mindless third world. > The ones I'm talking about are the ones who go to mass, have confirmation for their kids and the > like but regularly use birth control and do other things the church say are no-nos. > These are the ones I call non-Catholic Catholics. Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic. That particular cult has always worked that way and hardly ever is silly enough to let you rabid fanatics rule the roost. You dont even see too many fanatical about booting homosexuals out of the cult anymore. They are very well aware that hordes of their priest are. > If they are no longer actively practicing then I don't consider them former Catholics, i.e. not > Catholics. You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant. You're just another rabid fanatic who doesnt actually have a clue about how that particular cult works. Its nothing like as hard line as most protestant cults are. >>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >>>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules. >>> Which is my point. No it isnt. >>> I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian >>> or not? Its nothing like as black and white as that with eating fish on fridays. >> Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of faith -- but I get your >> meaning. > You can put in a religion and non-religious actions if you rather. Non religious actions are irrelevant a faith. And most of the crap like fish on fridays and even birth control arent examples of papal infallibility anyway so they are welcome to be selective about what rules they ignore and still be part of that cult. >>> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them) >>> but I don't go to mass, have sex outside riage, use birth control and support abortion on >>> demand. Now am I a Catholic? Yep, a lapsed one who may get his act into gear on that stuff later. And you arent even a lapsed one if its just contraception and not going to mass. >> I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines faith and >> culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or >> another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go >> to church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other >> religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite >> never going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus >> celebrate Diwali despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to fast >> during Ramadan. > People like that will sometimes claim to be a member of a religion but they usually just claim to > believe in god. Wrong, the vast bulk of the catholics that behave like that claim to be catholics and still get buried by the church etc.                               Date: 13 Feb 2007 17:04:05 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many >>>>>>> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > >>>>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges >>>>> the Pope's primacy. The nature of his primacy can be debated, but his > >>>> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics >>>> should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and >>>> his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. > >>> But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply >>> sins that should be confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's >>> primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of England that she isn't the >>> rightful heir to the throne. > >> I see your point. But by confessing and not repenting are they not >> saying that they think the church, and by extension the Pope, are wrong? > > Nope, they're saying that they cant manage to be as good as is desirable, > particularly on stuff like not being as charitable as they should, polite > etc etc etc. So repeat criminals are just law abiding citizens who just "cant manage to be as good as is desirable" and they are not saying that they don't believe the laws apply to them >> BTW, doing penitence is not the same as repenting. > > No one ever said it was. Just wanted to make sure you knew the difference because when you confess you are suposed to be repentent not just saying you want to be forgiven for this time and have an out for your next planned time. There's a major difference between tripping and falling into the mud and jumping in. > >> Repenting means you are doing penitence because you are sorry you did >> something NOT so you can be forgiven this time and be ready for the next. > > Its more complicated than that in that particular cult. > > You could even buy indulgences, and presumably still can. > And you can claim to be a vegetarian. >>>>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time >>>>> with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... > >>>> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all >>>> things. > >>> Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all >>> things (and confess their failures), or are actively lapsed and >>> acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition but no longer >>> actively practice. > > Most in fact are selective about the trivia they bother with, most > obviously > with eating fish on friday, sending their brats to schools run by the > cult, > birth control, etc etc etc and dont even bother to confess that stuff. IOW, they want to be called Catholics not be Catholics. >> The ones I'm talking about are the ones who go to mass, have confirmation >> for their kids and the like but regularly use birth control and do other >> things the church say are no-nos. > >> These are the ones I call non-Catholic Catholics. > > Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic. Just because I follow rules? I also follow many laws I don't agree with does that make me a "rabid fanatic" even though I work, within the rules, to change them? >> If they are no longer actively practicing then I don't consider them >> former Catholics, i.e. not Catholics. > > You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly > irrelevant. You maybe but I do many things that effect others around me. > > You're just another rabid fanatic who doesnt actually > have a clue about how that particular cult works. I don't need to know how someone who claims to be a vegetarian lives I only need he eats meat to know he isn't a vegetarian no matter how loudly he claims to be. > >>>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. > >>>>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't >>>>> follow their own rules. > >>>> Which is my point. > > No it isnt. Yes it is. If you don't follow the rules of X you are not an X. You are a faker and hypocrite. Go to all the environmental rallys you want, give money to every environmental group known to man kind, demand that others stop driving SUV's, wear a shirt claiming you are an environmentalist every day and none of it matters if you pour your used motor oil into the ditch behind your house, burn your trash in a barrel in your backyard and such like. You are thing but a faker and hypocrite. Tell the world you are a Catholic and ignore the rules layed out by the church and you are nothing but a faker and hypocrite. Tell the world you are a Christain and ignore the rules layed out in the Bible and you are nothing but a faker and hypocrite. That's my point. > >>>> I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and >>>> fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not? > > Its nothing like as black and white as that with eating fish on fridays. If the church demands that Catholics eat fish on Fridays then it does. Two things, first they never HAD to eat fish on Friday only not eat "meat" (don't ask me who fish flesh isn't meat) and second I think they have changed that rule. > >>> Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of >>> faith -- but I get your meaning. > >> You can put in a religion and non-religious actions if you rather. > > Non religious actions are irrelevant a faith. Huh? > >>>> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have >>>> been talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside >>>> riage, use birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a >>>> Catholic? > > Yep, a lapsed one who may get his act into gear on that stuff later. Half right. Only if they are sorry that they have done it and are not still doing it.                         Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:24:32 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because >>>>>> of the weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the money and >>>>>> people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. >>>>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic church, in most >>>>> non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true teachings of Christ and therefore are not a >>>>> true Christian church. >> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and >> Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the >> primacy of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into >> a heated debate about it. >>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The >> *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his > If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics > should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him > and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys. They have confession for a reason, stupid. >> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with practicing Catholics to have >> learned a thing or two.... > Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. Only rabid fanantics ever do that. > Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I dated one for a > while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The > rest looked at them as guidelines not rules. And that has always been one way of doing a religion. Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate like that too. >>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules. > Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now > am I a vegetarian or not? It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays. > I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them) > but I don't go to mass, It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally ? > have sex outside riage, use birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic? Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid. > To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO. Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic. You dont see many of those in the roman catholic church anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead. >> That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can formally question some of the tenets >> of the church without being >> excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be questioned, >> and the details about how it works, but it's an involved enough >> process that I'm guessing the people you're talking about are merely >> lapsed to some degree and not "officially" questioning the church.... :-) > My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked > them because they are world known and I know a little about their > religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on > actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group. But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like you.                           Date: 12 Feb 2007 18:38:04 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>>> >>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > >>>>> >>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who >>>>> challenges the Pope's primacy. The >>> *nature* of his primacy can be >>>>> debated, but his > >> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% >>>>> of the US Catholics >> should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing >>>>> their noses at him >> and his teachings on birth control, divorce and >>>>> more. > > They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys. > >>>>> > They have confession for a reason, stupid. IIRC, confession is for you to admit your wrongs, get them forgiven and to say you won't do it again. Not to allow you to keep on getting away with something. > >>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with > >>> practicing Catholics to have >>> learned a thing or two.... > >> Ask > >>> them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. > >>> > > Only rabid fanantics ever do that. IOW, only the true Catholics. > >> Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my > >> life (I dated one for a >> while) were what I would call true > >> Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The >> rest > >> looked at them as guidelines not rules. > > And that has always been > >> one way of doing a religion. IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not have to be Catholic. > Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate > like that too. More faulty logic. That's like a kid saying it must be ok to shoplift because plenty of other kids do it. >>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. > >>>> >>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't >>>> follow their own rules. > >> Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a >>>> vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now >> am I a >>>> vegetarian or not? > > It aint that black and white with stuff like >>>> eating fish on fridays. Sure it is. What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist? Its following the rules. > >> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have >> been talking about them) >> but I don't go to mass, > > It aint that >> black and white either. What about only going occasionally ? You are adding to my scenario to fit what you want. I said "don't go to mass," not "don't go to mass regularly,". > >> have sex outside riage, use birth control and support abortion on >> demand. Now am I a Catholic? > > Corse you are if you decide that the ban >> on birth control is stupid. So I'm a law abiding citizen and will be allowed to remain living free with all the other law abiding citizens if I shoot an illegal immigrants because I think the ban on shooting illegal immigrants is stupid? If you think the ban on birth control is stupid why would you want to follow a church that preaches that? > >> To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO. > > Yeah, but you are > >> a rabid fanatic. That's funny. You calling someone who believes that if you don't want go to hear about God I leave you alone a "rabid fanatic". What phrase do you call people who want to pass laws forcing their view of religion on you? > You don't see many of those in the roman catholic church > anymore, most > of those turned into protestants instead. No you don't see many of them because the RC church rather have non-Catholic Catholics filling the pews and offering plates than having to sell some of their pretty buildings. >>> That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can formally >>> question some of the tenets >>> of the church without being >>> >>> excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be questioned, >>> >>> and the details about how it works, but it's an involved enough >>> >>> process that I'm guessing the people you're talking about are merely >>> >>> lapsed to some degree and not "officially" questioning the church.... >>> :-) > >> My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I >>> picked >> them because they are world known and I know a little about >>> their >> religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based >>> on >> actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that >>> group. > > But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid >>> fanatics like you. And what group is that and what am I so rabidly fanatic about? > >                             Date: 13 Feb 2007 15:21:34 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >>>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The >>>> nature of his primacy can be debated, but his >>> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics >>> should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him >>> and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. >> They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys. >> They have confession for a reason, stupid. > IIRC, confession is for you to admit your wrongs, get them forgiven and to say you won't do it > again. Not to allow you to keep on getting away with something. They dont in fact boot people out who keep confessing and keep saying that they wont do it again. They only boot out those who dont bother to confess their sins and who dont even bother to say they wont do it again. And they arent as mindlessly hard line about some of the more trivial stuff like contraceptives and eating fish on fridays or sending your brats to non church schools either. Or even getting real radical and daring to ry someone who isnt in that obscenity of a cult either. Or booting those who ry someone in another cult outside the RC cult either. >>>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time >>>> with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... >>> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. >> Only rabid fanantics ever do that. > IOW, only the true Catholics. You wouldnt know what a true catholic was if one bit you on your lard arse, fundy. >>> Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I dated one for a >> >>> while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The >>> rest looked at them as guidelines not rules. >> And that has always been one way of doing a religion. > IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not have to be Catholic. Or there might just be more than one way of doing a religion, fundy. >> Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate like that too. > More faulty logic. We'll see... > That's like a kid saying it must be ok to shoplift because plenty of other kids do it. Nothing like with the more trivial rules that anyone with a clue has noticed change over time, like saying the mass in the local language or in latin etc. Even with mindlessly silly shit like the selling of indulgences etc. Only the rabid fanatics chuck a trantrum and storm out. Most roman catholics just carry on regardless and realise that very little doesnt change over time with the relatively trivial crap like what women can do in the cult, what the cult's positiion is on what schools the cult member's brats can attend, what has to happen with raige with non cult members, what cult members should do church attendance wise, etc etc etc. There's a reason that particular cult has lasted as long as it has and so many of the more rabid protestant cults are lucky to even manage a single generation. >>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >>>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules. >>> Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now >>> am I a vegetarian or not? >>> It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays. > Sure it is. What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist? > Its following the rules. Fantasy with that particular cult. And plenty of protestant cults have no rules handed down by bigwigs in the heirarchy, because they have no hierarchy at all. >>> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them) >>> >> but I don't go to mass, >> It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally ? > You are adding to my scenario to fit what you want. Nope, I'm rubbing your stupid rabid fundy nose in the fact that its nothing like as black and white as you claim. > I said "don't go to mass," not "don't go to mass regularly,". You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. What you might of might not have said in spades. >>> have sex outside riage, use birth control and >>> support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic? >> Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid. > So I'm a law abiding citizen and will be allowed to remain living free > with all the other law abiding citizens if I shoot an illegal immigrants > because I think the ban on shooting illegal immigrants is stupid? Nothing like ignoring the ban on birth control because you realise its stupid and completely counter productive in the third world. In spades with the ban on condoms in the parts of the world were HIV/AIDS is rife. > If you think the ban on birth control is stupid why > would you want to follow a church that preaches that? Because they will likely come to their senses on that eventually just like they did on that question about whether the sun revolves around the earth and you can ignore that particular ban with complete impunity. That obscenity of a cult doesnt even require you to prove that the reason you only have 2 brats is because you dont fuck anymore. In the case of the women who think the bad on women clergy makes no sense, presumably they consider that they prefer the rest of the cult better than the alternative protestant cults that allow that etc. >>>> To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO. >> Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic. > That's funny. We'll see... > You calling someone who believes that if you don't want > go to hear about God I leave you alone a "rabid fanatic". Its that mindless shit of yours above that if you dont agree with some detail of what the cult currently claims are the rules then you must leave is what makes you a rabid fanatic. You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular cult has hardly ever operated like that, and the downsides that have happened when it has actually been stupid enough to let rabid fanatics like you operate like that in that particular cult. > What phrase do you call people who want to > pass laws forcing their view of religion on you? They're rabid fanatics too. Fortunately there are fuck all of those in any decent democracy and I choose to live in one of those myself and whatever they want, there isnt even the remotest possibility of them ever being able to achieve that. Even the wahabis arent into that either and you cant get much more rabid than them. >> You don't see many of those in the roman catholic church >> anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead. > No you don't see many of them because the RC church rather > have non-Catholic Catholics filling the pews and offering plates > than having to sell some of their pretty buildings. Have fun explaining how they delt with Luther. Have fun explaining how they delt with jews too. >>>> That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can >>>> formally question some of the tenets of the church without >>>> being excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be >>>> questioned, and the details about how it works, but it's an >>>> involved enough process that I'm guessing the people you're >>>> talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not >>>> "officially" questioning the church.... :-) >>> My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked >>> them because they are world known and I know a little about their >>> religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on >>> actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group. >> But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like you. > And what group is that Those with such stupid ideas about following 'rules' > and what am I so rabidly fanatic about? That if they dont abide by all the 'rules', they should leave. That particular cult has never worked like that. And thats why its lasted a hell of a lot longer that any protestant cult ever has.                               Date: 13 Feb 2007 17:04:05 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > >>>>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges >>>>> the Pope's primacy. The >>>>> nature of his primacy can be debated, but his > >>>> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics >>>> should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him >>>> and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. > >>> They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys. > >>> They have confession for a reason, stupid. > >> IIRC, confession is for you to admit your wrongs, get them forgiven and >> to say you won't do it >> again. Not to allow you to keep on getting away with something. > > They dont in fact boot people out who keep confessing > and keep saying that they wont do it again. Never said they did. Only using it as another example of how they are not following what is taught in the Bible. If you read it yourself you will find that if a fellow Christian screws up and will not stop screwing up after several attempts to get him to correct his behavior he is to be, for lack of better terms, put out of the Church. As I said, different rules for believers. > >>>>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time >>>>> with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... > >>>> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all >>>> things. > >>> Only rabid fanantics ever do that. > >> IOW, only the true Catholics. > > You wouldnt know what a true catholic was if one bit you on your lard > arse, fundy. Sure I do. They are the ones who follow the teachings and rules of the Catholic church. > >>>> Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my >>>> life (I dated one for a >> >>>> while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the >>>> teachings of the church. The >>>> rest looked at them as guidelines not rules. > >>> And that has always been one way of doing a religion. > >> IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not have to be Catholic. > > Or there might just be more than one way of doing a religion, fundy. Not when it comes to Catholicism. (Ok I should put Roman Cathloic there is the Greek Orthodox Cathloics.) Either you are a Catholic or you are not. My example of a vegetarian shows that. Either you eat meat or you don't. If you don't eat meat then you ARE a vegetarian, if you do eat meat you are NOT a vegetarian. You either follow the laws of the Catholic church and be a Catholic or you don't follow the laws and you are not a Catholic. You can call yourself a vegetarian or Catholic or a tree if you want but calling yourself something doesn't make you one. >>> Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate >>> like that too. > >> More faulty logic. > > We'll see... > >> That's like a kid saying it must be ok to shoplift because plenty of >> other kids do it. > > Nothing like with the more trivial rules that anyone > with a clue has noticed change over time, like > saying the mass in the local language or in latin etc. So? Laws are changed all the time (read about prohibition in the US) but it doesn't change the fact that you are required to obey the ones in effect at the time. A lot of people thought the prohibition laws were 'silly' and didn't follow them. Those who didn't follow the law might have claimed to be law abiding people but they were not. If people in the RC church don't like the rules then they have some choices: 1) Be a real Catholic. follow the rules and do nothing about them. 2) Be a real Catholic, follow the rules and try to get them changed. 3) Be a fake Catholic, ignore the rules and claim to be a Catholic. 4) Find a church with rules they agree with and join it. > Even with mindlessly silly shit like the selling of indulgences etc. > > Only the rabid fanatics chuck a trantrum and storm out. Only fakers claim to be one thing but are really something else. > > Most roman catholics just carry on regardless and realise that > very little doesnt change over time with the relatively trivial crap > like what women can do in the cult, what the cult's positiion is > on what schools the cult member's brats can attend, what > has to happen with raige with non cult members, what > cult members should do church attendance wise, etc etc etc. IOW, they want the privileges of the church but not the responsibilities that come with it. > > >>>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. > >>>>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't >>>>> follow their own rules. > >>>> Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, >>>> beef, chicken and fish. Now >>>> am I a vegetarian or not? >>>> It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays. > >> Sure it is. What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist? >> Its following the rules. > > Fantasy with that particular cult. > > And plenty of protestant cults have no rules handed down by > bigwigs in the heirarchy, because they have no hierarchy at all. Tell me of a few, if you can. > >>>> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have >>>> been talking about them) >>>> >> but I don't go to mass, > >>> It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally >>> ? > >> You are adding to my scenario to fit what you want. > > Nope, I'm rubbing your stupid rabid fundy nose in the > fact that its nothing like as black and white as you claim. Lying again and didn't even cut out the facts that prove it. I clearly state "don't go to mass" you add "only going occasionally" to make it fit your idea. You still haven't answered my question. Would that person be a Catholic (the one in my question not yours) or not? >> I said "don't go to mass," not "don't go to mass regularly,". > > You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly > irrelevant. IOW, I am right and you are wrong and you are not man enough to admit it. > >>>> have sex outside riage, use birth control and >>>> support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic? > >>> Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid. > >> So I'm a law abiding citizen and will be allowed to remain living free >> with all the other law abiding citizens if I shoot an illegal immigrants >> because I think the ban on shooting illegal immigrants is stupid? > > Nothing like ignoring the ban on birth control because you realise > its stupid and completely counter productive in the third world. Try to answer the questions. It really isn't that hard. After all it is a yes or no question. > > In spades with the ban on condoms in the parts of the world were HIV/AIDS > is rife. Simple, if you want to use condoms then pick a religion that allows it. Or just make up your own religion. Doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people claiming to be something but not living up to it. It doesn't matter if its a Catholic that uses condoms, a Christian who screws around or an environmentalist who flys around in a private jet. > >> If you think the ban on birth control is stupid why >> would you want to follow a church that preaches that? > > Because they will likely come to their senses on that eventually just like > they did on that question about whether the sun revolves around the > earth and you can ignore that particular ban with complete impunity. Nope, but if you'll notice that that rule was changed as well as many others. Has nothing to do with my argument that you have no right to claim to be a member of a group if you don't follow the rules of that group. >>>>> To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO. > >>> Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic. > >> That's funny. > > We'll see... > >> You calling someone who believes that if you don't want >> go to hear about God I leave you alone a "rabid fanatic". > > Its that mindless shit of yours above that if you dont agree > with some detail of what the cult currently claims are the > rules then you must leave is what makes you a rabid fanatic. So I guess I can claim that I'm a Catholic then even though I don't believe their rules. > > You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular > cult has hardly ever operated like that, and the downsides that > have happened when it has actually been stupid enough to let > rabid fanatics like you operate like that in that particular cult. Then what rules does a person have to follow to not be called a member of a group? Can I claim to be a vegetarian? I eat vegetables. That pesky little fact that I also eat pork, beef, chicken, fish, and the like has no bearing on it. At least according to your logic. > >> What phrase do you call people who want to >> pass laws forcing their view of religion on you? > > They're rabid fanatics too. Fortunately there are fuck all of > those in any decent democracy and I choose to live in one > of those myself and whatever they want, there isnt even the > remotest possibility of them ever being able to achieve that. To use one of your oft use phrases; Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. Read some history. I'd suggest you read how Germany went from a civilized country to what it became. I'll give you a head start Hitler was voted into office. > > Even the wahabis arent into that either and > you cant get much more rabid than them. Read more about them. For one thing you have just a few choices if you want to live in an Islamic country; 1) Be Islamic. 2) If you are not Islamic but are a follower of Abraham, i.e. Jewish or Christian you can; 2a) convert to Islam 2b) pay to continue practicing your religion but your kids must convert to Islam. 3) If you are not Islamic and not a follower of Abraham you must convert or be killed. > >>> You don't see many of those in the roman catholic church >>> anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead. > >> No you don't see many of them because the RC church rather >> have non-Catholic Catholics filling the pews and offering plates >> than having to sell some of their pretty buildings. > > Have fun explaining how they delt with Luther. You know I don't see many people in the church who hang around with Luther. Hum, could be because that was a few years ago. >>>>> That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can >>>>> formally question some of the tenets of the church without >>>>> being excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be >>>>> questioned, and the details about how it works, but it's an >>>>> involved enough process that I'm guessing the people you're >>>>> talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not >>>>> "officially" questioning the church.... :-) > >>>> My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked >>>> them because they are world known and I know a little about their >>>> religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on >>>> actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group. > >>> But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like >>> you. > >> And what group is that > > Those with such stupid ideas about following 'rules' Such as vegetarian who think fellow vegetarians shouldn't eat meat. Now I think I get your point. > >> and what am I so rabidly fanatic about? > > That if they dont abide by all the 'rules', they should leave. > > That particular cult has never worked like that. Seems to me that in the past they did some really nasty things to people who didn't follow their rules. Maybe I'm thinking of vegetarian instead of Catholics.                                 Date: 18 Feb 2007 16:23:11 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>>>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >>>>>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. >>>>>> The nature of his primacy can be debated, >>>>> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics >>>>> should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him >>>>> and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more. >>>> They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys. >>>> They have confession for a reason, stupid. >>> IIRC, confession is for you to admit your wrongs, get them forgiven and to say you won't do it >>> again. Not to allow you to keep on getting away with something. >> They dont in fact boot people out who keep confessing >> and keep saying that they wont do it again. > Never said they did. Only using it as another example of how they are not following what is taught > in the Bible. The bulk of the rules of the roman catholic church have nothing to do with the bible. Most obviously with the mass, services in churches, cathedrals etc, bishops, popes, the entire church hierarchy, etc etc etc. > If you read it yourself you will find that if a fellow Christian screws up and will not stop > screwing up after several attempts to get him to correct his behavior he is to be, for lack of > better terms, put out of the Church. The roman catholic church doesnt do it that way, as long as you keep confessing your sins and promise to try to not do them again. > As I said, different rules for believers. Its nothing like as black and white as you claim with the roman catholic church. >>>>>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time >>>>>> with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two.... >>>>> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things. >>>> Only rabid fanantics ever do that. >>> IOW, only the true Catholics. >> You wouldnt know what a true catholic was if one bit you on your lard arse, fundy. > Sure I do. They are the ones who follow the teachings and rules of the Catholic church. Almost no roman catholics do that on every teaching and rule of the roman catholic church. Most have particular areas they disagree with the church about, whether that is just sending their brats to church schools, rying those who are not part of the roman catholic church, eating fish on fridays, or more fundamental stuff like birth control or whether there can never ever be ried priests etc. It isnt even true of most priests, let alone the stupid god grovellers in that particular church. In spades with some controversial areas like miracles etc. >>>>> Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I dated one for a >>>>> while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The >>>>> rest looked at them as guidelines not rules. >>>> And that has always been one way of doing a religion. >>> IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not have to be Catholic. >> Or there might just be more than one way of doing a religion, fundy. > Not when it comes to Catholicism. (Ok I should put Roman Cathloic there is the Greek Orthodox > Cathloics.) Wrong, as always. > Either you are a Catholic or you are not. Wrong, as always. That particular church has never been as mindlessly hard line as that, and that is the whole point of confession etc. > My example of a vegetarian shows that. Either you eat > meat or you don't. If you don't eat meat then you ARE a vegetarian, if you do eat meat you are NOT > a vegetarian. Wrong, as always. That particular church has never been as mindlessly hard line as that, and that is the whole point of confession etc. And even vegetarians arent that hardline either, particularly about stuff like eggs etc and even fish too. > You either follow the laws of the Catholic church and be a Catholic or you don't follow the laws > and you are not a Catholic. You can call yourself a vegetarian or Catholic or a tree if you want > but calling yourself something doesn't make you one. You get no say what so ever on what is or is not a catholic, fundy. >>>> Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate like that too. >>> More faulty logic. >> We'll see... >>> That's like a kid saying it must be ok to shoplift because plenty of other kids do it. >> Nothing like with the more trivial rules that anyone >> with a clue has noticed change over time, like >> saying the mass in the local language or in latin etc. > So? Laws are changed all the time (read about prohibition in the US) > but it doesn't change the fact that you are required to obey the ones > in effect at the time. Wrong again with hordes of 'rules' like sending their brats to church schools, rying those who are not part of the roman catholic church, eating fish on fridays, or more fundamental stuff like birth control or whether there can never ever be ried priests etc. It isnt even true of most priests, let alone the stupid god grovellers in that particular church. > A lot of people thought the prohibition laws were 'silly' and didn't follow them. And they didnt get booted out of the country, stupid. There were penaltys for not obeying the law, and there are with roman catholics who confess to particular sins too. Even Galileo didnt get booted out of the roman catholic church. > Those who didn't follow the law might have claimed to be law abiding people but they were not. > If people in the RC church don't like the rules then they have some choices: > 1) Be a real Catholic. follow the rules and do nothing about them. > 2) Be a real Catholic, follow the rules and try to get them changed. > 3) Be a fake Catholic, ignore the rules and claim to be a Catholic. > 4) Find a church with rules they agree with and join it. 5) Tell stupid fundys like you that they havent got a fucking clue about how that particular church does things and to take your list and shove it where the sun dont shine and that you'll be burning anyway because you're a protestant. >> Even with mindlessly silly shit like the selling of indulgences etc. >> Only the rabid fanatics chuck a trantrum and storm out. > Only fakers claim to be one thing but are really something else. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about what confession is about in that particular cult. They didnt even kick Galileo out. >> Most roman catholics just carry on regardless and realise that >> very little doesnt change over time with the relatively trivial crap >> like what women can do in the cult, what the cult's positiion is >> on what schools the cult member's brats can attend, what >> has to happen with raige with non cult members, what >> cult members should do church attendance wise, etc etc etc. > IOW, they want the privileges of the church but not the responsibilities that come with it. IOW they understand how that cult actually works and you never will. >>>>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >>>>>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules. >>>>> Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat >>>>> pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not? >>>>> It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays. >>> Sure it is. What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist? >>> Its following the rules. >> Fantasy with that particular cult. >> And plenty of protestant cults have no rules handed down by >> bigwigs in the heirarchy, because they have no hierarchy at all. > Tell me of a few, if you can. The Quakers for starters. They aint alone. Your pig ignorance stands out like dogs balls. >>>>> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about >>>>> them) but I don't go to mass, >>>> It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally ? >>> You are adding to my scenario to fit what you want. >> Nope, I'm rubbing your stupid rabid fundy nose in the >> fact that its nothing like as black and white as you claim. > Lying again and didn't even cut out the facts that prove it. I > clearly state "don't go to mass" you add "only going occasionally" to > make it fit your idea. You still haven't answered my question. Would that person be a Catholic > (the one in my question not yours) or not? As far as that cult is concerned, yes they are. And they wouldnt be refused absolution on imminent death or be refused burial by the church, etc etc etc. >>> I said "don't go to mass," not "don't go to mass regularly,". >> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. > IOW, I am right and you are wrong and you are not man enough to admit it. Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys. >>>>> have sex outside riage, use birth control and >>>>> support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic? >>>> Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid. >>> So I'm a law abiding citizen and will be allowed to remain living >>> free with all the other law abiding citizens if I shoot an illegal immigrants because I think >>> the ban on shooting illegal immigrants is stupid? >> Nothing like ignoring the ban on birth control because you realise >> its stupid and completely counter productive in the third world. > Try to answer the questions. It really isn't that hard. After all it is a yes or no question. No it aint. Only rabid fundys are so blinkered that they reduce everything to black and white. >> In spades with the ban on condoms in the parts of the world were HIV/AIDS is rife. > Simple, if you want to use condoms then pick a religion that allows it. Or just make up your own > religion. That particular cult doesnt work like that. They dont even encourage those who disagree with particular rules to leave that cult, let alone boot them out. > Doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people claiming to be something but not living up to it. Your problem. > It doesn't matter if its a Catholic that uses condoms, a Christian who screws around or an > environmentalist who flys around in a private jet. Pity about you flouting what that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans told you to do behaviour wise. >>> If you think the ban on birth control is stupid why >>> would you want to follow a church that preaches that? >> Because they will likely come to their senses on that eventually just like they did on that >> question about whether the sun revolves around the earth and you can ignore that particular ban >> with complete impunity. > Nope, Yep. > but if you'll notice that that rule was changed as well as many others. There was no 'rule' on that. Those terminal fuckwits just claimed that thats what the bible said and that that must be true. They have since come to their senses on that. They dont even claim that the bible has anything to say about contraception or ried priests, or what women can do in the cult, etc etc etc. > Has nothing to do with my argument that you have no right to claim to be a member of a group if > you don't follow the rules of that group. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about what confession is about in that particular cult. They didnt even encourage Galileo to leave. >>>>>> To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO. >>>> Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic. >>> That's funny. >> We'll see... >>> You calling someone who believes that if you don't want >>> go to hear about God I leave you alone a "rabid fanatic". >> Its that mindless shit of yours above that if you dont agree >> with some detail of what the cult currently claims are the >> rules then you must leave is what makes you a rabid fanatic. > So I guess I can claim that I'm a Catholic then even though I don't believe their rules. Pathetic, really. >> You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular >> cult has hardly ever operated like that, and the downsides that >> have happened when it has actually been stupid enough to let >> rabid fanatics like you operate like that in that particular cult. > Then what rules does a person have to follow to not be called a member of a group? That particular cult doesnt even operate like that. Regardless of what you want it to do. > Can I claim to be a vegetarian? I eat vegetables. That pesky little fact that I also eat pork, > beef, chicken, fish, and the like has no bearing on it. At least according to your logic. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about what confession is about in that particular cult. They didnt even encourage Galileo to leave. >>> What phrase do you call people who want to >>> pass laws forcing their view of religion on you? >> They're rabid fanatics too. Fortunately there are fuck all of >> those in any decent democracy and I choose to live in one >> of those myself and whatever they want, there isnt even the >> remotest possibility of them ever being able to achieve that. > To use one of your oft use phrases; Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. > Read some history. I'd suggest you read how Germany went from a civilized country to what it > became. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that that wasnt anything like a decent democracy when they were actually stupid enough to vote themselves out of existence and let that jumped up little arsehole rule by decree. > I'll give you a head start Hitler was voted into office. Like hell he ever was with the office of Chancellor. >> Even the wahabis arent into that either and >> you cant get much more rabid than them. > Read more about them. Find a more viable line in mindless bullshit. > For one thing you have just a few choices if you want to live in an Islamic country; > 1) Be Islamic. > 2) If you are not Islamic but are a follower of Abraham, i.e. Jewish > or Christian you can; > 2a) convert to Islam > 2b) pay to continue practicing your religion but your kids must > convert to Islam. That is a pig ignorant lie. > 3) If you are not Islamic and not a follower of Abraham you must convert or be killed. Another pig ignorant lie. >>>> You don't see many of those in the roman catholic church >>>> anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead. >>> No you don't see many of them because the RC church rather >>> have non-Catholic Catholics filling the pews and offering plates >>> than having to sell some of their pretty buildings. >> Have fun explaining how they delt with Luther. > You know I don't see many people in the church who hang around with Luther. Hum, could be because > that was a few years ago. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>>> That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can >>>>>> formally question some of the tenets of the church without >>>>>> being excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be >>>>>> questioned, and the details about how it works, but it's an >>>>>> involved enough process that I'm guessing the people you're >>>>>> talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not >>>>>> "officially" questioning the church.... :-) >>>>> My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I >>>>> picked them because they are world known and I know a little >>>>> about their religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a >>>>> group based on actions of people who are only claiming to be >>>>> members of that group. >>>> But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like you. >>> And what group is that >> Those with such stupid ideas about following 'rules' > Such as vegetarian who think fellow vegetarians shouldn't eat meat. Now I think I get your point. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> and what am I so rabidly fanatic about? >> That if they dont abide by all the 'rules', they should leave. >> That particular cult has never worked like that. > Seems to me that in the past they did some really nasty things to people who didn't follow their > rules. They didnt even boot Galileo out of that cult. > Maybe I'm thinking of vegetarian instead of Catholics. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.                       Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:45:32 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com > wrote: >You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and >Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the primacy >of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated >debate about it. I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy of the Pope. While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is located. It could be true, but I doubt it. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...                         Date: 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 From: R.H. Allen Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Curtis L. Russell wrote: > On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and >> Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the primacy >> of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated >> debate about it. > > I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy > of the Pope. Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to say they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they accept the doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to papal primacy, but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches accept primacy varies (and for the most part, the non-Catholic churches that accept this are Eastern churches rather than Protestant ones). > While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three > largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be > true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is > located. It could be true, but I doubt it. As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an offshoot of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an episcopal polity, their priests are ordained according to apostolic succession, and they won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope okays it. Here's one I was able to find in Kansas City via Google: http://www.ecclnet.org/                           Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:16:18 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? R.H. Allen <kkarie@hotmail.com > wrote: > Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and >>> Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the >>> primacy of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into >>> a heated debate about it. >> >> I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy >> of the Pope. > > Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to > say they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they > accept the doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to > papal primacy, but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches > accept primacy varies (and for the most part, the non-Catholic > churches that accept this are Eastern churches rather than Protestant > ones). >> While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three >> largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be >> true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is >> located. It could be true, but I doubt it. > > As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical > Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific > example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an > offshoot of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an > episcopal polity, their priests are ordained according to apostolic > succession, and they won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope > okays it. Fark, I thought I'd seen it all. Guess its not much worse than the considerable number of episcopalians and anglicans that jump ship back to that obscenity, the roman catholic church, tho. > Here's one I was able to find in Kansas City via Google: > http://www.ecclnet.org/ They should be burnt at the stake.                           Date: 08 Feb 2007 14:34:51 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com > wrote: >Curtis L. Russell wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and >>> Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the primacy >>> of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated >>> debate about it. >> >> I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy >> of the Pope. > >Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to say >they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they accept the >doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to papal primacy, >but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches accept primacy varies >(and for the most part, the non-Catholic churches that accept this are >Eastern churches rather than Protestant ones). > >> While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three >> largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be >> true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is >> located. It could be true, but I doubt it. > >As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical >Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific >example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an offshoot >of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an episcopal polity, >their priests are ordained according to apostolic succession, and they >won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope okays it. Here's one I >was able to find in Kansas City via Google: > >http://www.ecclnet.org/ The answer, then, is no, the major Lutheran Churches do not recognize the primacy of the Pope. The Missouri Synod specifically rejects apostolic succession. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not AFAIK recognize it (coming from the MS). Apostolic succession as recognized by the Lutheran churches does NOT in any way recognize the primacy of the Pope - rather, it is a claim that the sources of the church go back in succession to Peter. That does not in anyway make the current Pope his avatar. So, no, apostolic succession does not equal papal primacy. The small church that you indicated does show deference to the Roman Catholic church and the Pope. It can't hold some of the listed dogma and doctrine and hold belief in the primacy of the Pope without reservation. And while it is evidently HQ'd and started in Missouri, I rather doubt much connection to the Missouri Synod. If they came from there, they would have had to reconstitute apostolic succession. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...                             Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:17:59 From: R.H. Allen Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? Curtis L. Russell wrote: > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Curtis L. Russell wrote: >>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and >>>> Protestants (some of whom, priily Lutherans, still accept the primacy >>>> of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated >>>> debate about it. >>> I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy >>> of the Pope. >> Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to say >> they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they accept the >> doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to papal primacy, >> but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches accept primacy varies >> (and for the most part, the non-Catholic churches that accept this are >> Eastern churches rather than Protestant ones). >> >>> While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three >>> largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be >>> true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is >>> located. It could be true, but I doubt it. >> As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical >> Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific >> example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an offshoot >> of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an episcopal polity, >> their priests are ordained according to apostolic succession, and they >> won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope okays it. Here's one I >> was able to find in Kansas City via Google: >> >> http://www.ecclnet.org/ > > The answer, then, is no, the major Lutheran Churches do not recognize > the primacy of the Pope. I made no claims about the major Lutheran churches, only that there exist some Lutheran churches that accept papal primacy. > Apostolic succession as recognized by the Lutheran churches does NOT > in any way recognize the primacy of the Pope - rather, it is a claim > that the sources of the church go back in succession to Peter. That > does not in anyway make the current Pope his avatar. So, no, apostolic > succession does not equal papal primacy. Hence my weakening that statement in my last message, though there are smaller Lutheran churches that do appear, in the information I can find about them, to make the jump all the way to papal primacy. Aside from the one I linked to in my last message you'll find a few if you google "evangelical catholic lutheran", and in the external links section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Evangelical Some don't go all the way to papal primacy, but some do. That's all I ever said. > The small church that you indicated does show deference to the Roman > Catholic church and the Pope. It can't hold some of the listed dogma > and doctrine and hold belief in the primacy of the Pope without > reservation. And while it is evidently HQ'd and started in Missouri, I > rather doubt much connection to the Missouri Synod. If they came from > there, they would have had to reconstitute apostolic succession. Evidently they did, as apparently it was founded by former members of the Missouri Synod and explicitly accepts papal primacy and papal infallibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Community_Church-Lutheran Of course, it's Wikipedia, but if you click through the sources on the church's own site I think you'll get pretty much the same picture painted by Wikipedia. At any rate, there are evidently folks running around the planet who call themselves Lutheran, conduct services in a Lutheran tradition, and accept the primacy of the Pope. All I ever claimed is that such folks exist. If you don't believe me, fine, you don't have to.                               Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:58:28 From: Curtis L. Russell Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:17:59 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@hotmail.com > wrote: >Evidently they did, as apparently it was founded by former members of >the Missouri Synod and explicitly accepts papal primacy and papal >infallibility: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Community_Church-Lutheran > >Of course, it's Wikipedia, but if you click through the sources on the >church's own site I think you'll get pretty much the same picture >painted by Wikipedia. Look, I can join the ELCA and then leave and start a Church of Demonology Today. That does NOT make it an offshoot of the ELCA. If a group of disgruntled church members leave a church and start another, then it is not a splinter of the prior church. The only way to make it so is if they were a recognized splinter group within the church and separated on clearly stated grounds. Generally this assumes that they retain most of the teachings of the previous church and have a clearly defined reason for leaving. This is a group that for whatever reason decided to be Protestant Roman Catholics. That ain't the Missouri Synod, which has one of the most stringent non-ecumenical stands period. You either agree with them or you don't. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...                     Date: 08 Feb 2007 05:33:07 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of the weekly donation issue. >>>> It seemed to them that the church was >>>> out for the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven. >>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic >>> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true >>> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A couple of quick examples: >>> It teaches you need someone to stand >>> between you and Christ (you have to confess your sins to the >>> priest), you pray to people (y, Saint this or that), the believe >>> that there have been many 'perfect' people (they call them popes. >> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many decisions. It is the >> Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be followed. Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings change over time. > Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. And you dont 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ? >>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following them then it doesn't matter >>> what name they use) those rules are: Love God completely and love your neighbor as you love >>> yourself. >> You missed 60's and love, love, love. > Still a lot of hate there. Just another of your silly little fantasys. > Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color. Most of them dont. >>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the >>> people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust >>> off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that >>> point. As I have told many people talking about religions, any >>> religion which has to use force to keep its people from hearing >>> other preachings is most likely a false religion because a religion >>> of a God that could make the universe can easily stand up to a few >>> words or thoughts. >> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. >> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war?? > All. Nope, it aint a holy war for starters. > The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people for a 'holy war' for control > of the oil and the money it brings. Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil. > The more money they have the faster they can force their religion on the rest of the world under > the threat of terrorist and death. It aint about money. > As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to > keep them following your religion then you are following a false religion. There is no such animal as a 'true' religion. > Do you follow my line of thought? No such animal. Just the usual mindless fundy raving. > (sorry I had to put one more follow in there) Do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.                       Date: 07 Feb 2007 21:35:43 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many >>> decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > >> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be >> followed. > > Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings > change over time. Not really, you have rules and if you are a true <insert something here > you follow the rules. > >> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. > > And you dont 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ? Seems they don't care as long as they keep getting money from the non-Catholic Catholics. In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year riages with 5 kids to be annulled so someone can get ried 'in the church' but not allowing divorce. >>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following >>>> them then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are: Love >>>> God completely and love your neighbor as you love yourself. > >>> You missed 60's and love, love, love. > >> Still a lot of hate there. > > Just another of your silly little fantasys. Really? Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's? How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's? Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that. >> Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color. > > Most of them dont. Sure they do, just read their literature on how much they love themselves. > >>>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the >>>> people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust >>>> off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that >>>> point. As I have told many people talking about religions, any >>>> religion which has to use force to keep its people from hearing >>>> other preachings is most likely a false religion because a religion >>>> of a God that could make the universe can easily stand up to a few >>>> words or thoughts. > >>> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. >>> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war?? > >> All. > > Nope, it aint a holy war for starters. Tell that to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who are killing the Sunnies or others who believe they have to kill the infidels. Look at how many > >> The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people for >> a 'holy war' for control of the oil and the money it brings. > Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil. Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist want control of Iraq. But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist who get money from oil or poppies. > >> The more money they have the faster they can force their religion on the >> rest of the world under the threat of terrorist and death. > > It aint about money. Everything is about money. Without money nothing happens in this world. They are told that their religion is the only correct religion and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world. Can't do that w/o money. >> As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to >> keep them following your religion then you are following a false >> religion. > > There is no such animal as a 'true' religion. Sure there is, even in the human view of the world. A true religion is one that allows people to make their own decisions of how to live but shows how that life should be lived. A true follower of Christ does just that. There are others who do, I disagree with them but once they have heard the truth as I see is they must make their own decision on how to live. If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what you can do to prevent it. But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the police power of the state, to change. >> Do you follow my line of thought? > > No such animal. Just the usual mindless fundy raving. IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's the only one who knows what right in the world.                         Date: 08 Feb 2007 09:21:03 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >>> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be followed. It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic subset of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible. >> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings change over time. > Not really, Corse it is. > you have rules and if you are a true <insert something here> you follow the rules. Its nothing like as black and white as that mindlessly superficial line. A hell of a lot of what protestantism is about isnt about 'rules' >>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >> And you dont 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ? > Seems they don't care as long as they keep getting money from the non-Catholic Catholics. It aint priily about money. > In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year riages with 5 kids to be annulled so > someone can get ried 'in the church' but not allowing divorce. Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money. Thats just the usual mindless copout when one 'rule' conflicts with another. Plenty of examples of that with protestants too, most obviously with the execution of abortionists. >>>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't >>>>> following them then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are: Love God completely >>>>> and love your neighbor as you love yourself. >>>> You missed 60's and love, love, love. >>> Still a lot of hate there. >> Just another of your silly little fantasys. > Really? Yep. > Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's? Not by those spewing that love shit. > How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's? Never been into stupid stuff like that. > Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that. Or havent got a clue about what was being discussed. >>> Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color. >> Most of them dont. > Sure they do, just read their literature on how much they love themselves. Pathetic. >>>>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if >>>>> the people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the >>>>> dust off our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at >>>>> that point. As I have told many people talking about religions, >>>>> any religion which has to use force to keep its people from >>>>> hearing other preachings is most likely a false religion because >>>>> a religion of a God that could make the universe can easily stand >>>>> up to a few words or thoughts. >>>> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. >>>> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war?? >>> All. >> Nope, it aint a holy war for starters. > Tell that to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who are killing the Sunnies That aint a holy war. > or others who believe they have to kill the infidels. There are fuck all of those too. > Look at how many >>> The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people for a 'holy war' for >>> control of the oil and the money it brings. >> Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil. > Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist want control of Iraq. No we arent. > But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist who get money from oil or poppies. Wrong again. There's plenty of terrorists where there is no oil or poppies. >>> The more money they have the faster they can force their religion >>> on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist and death. >> It aint about money. > Everything is about money. Just another mindlessly silly fantasy. > Without money nothing happens in this world. Just another mindlessly silly fantasy. Have fun explaining what that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans had to say about that. > They are told that their religion is the only correct religion Another pig ignorant lie. > and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world. Another pig ignorant lie. > Can't do that w/o money. Another pig ignorant lie. >>> As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to >>> keep them following your religion then you are following a false religion. >> There is no such animal as a 'true' religion. > Sure there is, even in the human view of the world. Another pig ignorant lie. > A true religion is one that allows people to make their own decisions of how to live but shows how > that life should be lived. Another pig ignorant lie. > A true follower of Christ does just that. Another pig ignorant lie. > There are others who do, I disagree with them but once they have heard the truth as I see is they > must make their own decision on how to live. They ignore your mindless shit because they have noticed that you dont have a clue. > If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what you can do to prevent it. And I'll tell you to shove it where the sun dont shine. > But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the police power of the state, to > change. You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. >>> Do you follow my line of thought? >> No such animal. Just the usual mindless fundy raving. > IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's the only one who knows what > right in the world. You'll burn child. That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans said very unambiguously indeed that you cant do that sort of thing. Just another rabid fundy that cant even manage to work out what that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans told him to do.                           Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:31:43 From: no spam Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? >>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>>> >>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. > >>>>> >>>> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and >>>>> must be followed. > > It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic >>>>> subset > of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible. So any priest anywhere can stand up and say that the Pope is full of hot air on his rulings on homosexuals and letting women be priest and still keep his post in the church? Sorry don't think so. >>> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings >>> change over time. > >> Not really, > > Corse it is. Not the basic rules. But my point is even if the rules do change what does it matter if you ain't following them go begin with? >> you have rules and if you are a true <insert something here> you follow >> the rules. > > Its nothing like as black and white as that mindlessly >> superficial line. Sure it is. If you don't believe and follow the rules then you shouldn't claim to be a member of the group. Just because I eat pork or beef every meal does that mean I'm not a vegetarian!! OF COURSE IT DOES. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you "I'm a vegetarian." if I don't follow the rules and eat meat I am NOT a vegetarian NO MATTER how often I say I am. I can claim to be a Christian but if I screw around on my wife and rob banks for a living am I a Christian? Nope. Therefore you saying that Christians screw around on their wife's and rob banks is foolish. > A hell of a lot of what protestantism is about isnt about 'rules' Such as? >>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. > >>>> >>> And you don't 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ? > >>>> >> Seems they don't care as long as they keep getting money from the >>>> non-Catholic Catholics. > > It aint priily about money. Then explain to me why the non-Catholic Catholics are not tossed out of the church? Why do they allow women who the priest KNOW have screwed around and had abortions to be ried "in the church". >> In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year riages with 5 >> kids to be annulled so >> someone can get ried 'in the church' but not >> allowing divorce. > > Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money. Hockey Pucks! If it ain't about the money then what is it about? > Plenty of examples of that with protestants too, > most obviously with the > execution of abortionists. Give me plenty of examples then. The weak one you gave fails on three reasons. 1) you can't show me one church that calls for that; 2) check out what I have been telling you, just because someone calls himself a Christian doesn't mean he is; 3) abortionist are not being killed day in and day out. >>>>> You missed 60's and love, love, love. > >>>> Still a lot of hate >>>>> there. > >>> Just another of your silly little fantasys. > >> Really? >>>>> > > Yep. > >> Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's? > > Not by >>>>> those spewing that love shit. So you admit that there were lynchings in the 60's and there was still a lot of hate. Using your logic we don't have any hate now because there are those "spewing that love shit." > >> How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's? > > >> Never been into stupid stuff like that. And yet you claim that my stating there was hate in the 60's was "Just another of your silly little fantasys." >> Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that. > > Or havent got a clue >> about what was being discussed. You seem to be the one unable to follow the topic at hand. > >>>> Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color. > >>> >>>> Most of them don't. > >> Sure they do, just read their literature on >>>> how much they love themselves. > > Pathetic. Another thing you and they have in common. >>>>> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. >>>>> What >>>>> exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war?? > >>>>> >>>> All. > >>> Nope, it aint a holy war for starters. > >> Tell that >>>>> to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who are killing >>>>> the Sunnies > > That aint a holy war. Let's see, they are killing each other because of difference in religion but you don't call that a holy war. Just how do you define a holy war? >> or others who believe they have to kill the infidels. > > There are fuck >> all of those too. I give up what does that even mean? >>>> The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people >>>> for a 'holy war' for >>>> control of the oil and the money it brings. > >>>> >>> Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil. >>>> > >> Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist >>>> want control of Iraq. > > No we arent. Try to stay on topic. Not editing so much might help, although I doubt it because you are losing the debate. The point you are responding to is the fact that terrorist need money and oil is a good way to get it. You tried to change the topic to terrorist from countries w/o oil. >> But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist who get >> money from oil or poppies. > > Wrong again. There's plenty of terrorists >> where there is no oil or poppies. Ok, first you need to check to see if its time to take another dose of your meds because you seem to be completely losing your ability to focus here. Next carefully re-read what I wrote. The statement above has nothing to do with the terrorist being where the oil and poppies are only they are getting money from other terrorist who get their money from oil and poppies. Where do you think binny boy got his money to run his little holy war? From selling magazines door to door? Nope from his family's oil business. >>>> The more money they have the faster they can force their religion >>>> >>>> on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist and death. > >>> >>>> It aint about money. > >> Everything is about money. > > Just another >>>> mindlessly silly fantasy. IOW, you can't counter my point. >> Without money nothing happens in this world. > > Just another mindlessly >> silly fantasy. IOW, you can't counter my point. > >> They are told that their religion is the only correct religion > > >> Another pig ignorant lie. IOW, you can't counter my point. And it is true. Study their own words. > >> and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world. > > > >> Another pig ignorant lie. IOW, you can't counter my point. > >> Can't do that w/o money. > > Another pig ignorant lie. Ok, tell me how to spread a religion around the world w/o money. I'd love to know so that I can start spreading mine at no cost. >>>> As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death to >>>> >>>> keep them following your religion then you are following a false >>>> religion. > >>> There is no such animal as a 'true' religion. > >> Sure >>>> there is, even in the human view of the world. > > Another pig ignorant >>>> lie. IOW, you can't counter my point. > >> A true religion is one that allows people to make their own decisions > >> of how to live but shows how >> that life should be lived. > > Another > >> pig ignorant lie. IOW, you can't counter my point. >> A true follower of Christ does just that. > > Another pig ignorant lie. IOW, you can't counter my point. > >> There are others who do, I disagree with them but once they have heard >> the truth as I see is they >> must make their own decision on how to >> live. > > They ignore your mindless shit because they have noticed that >> you don't have a clue. You seem to be the only one here who can't support his arguments. > >> If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what you > >> can do to prevent it. > > And I'll tell you to shove it where the sun > >> don't shine. I don't care, I have done my part. The rest is up to you and God. Just the same as if I tell you not to touch that wire because the electric fence is on. If you touch it after that its your problem not mine. > >> But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the > >> police power of the state, to >> change. > > You have always been, and > >> always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. Me in specific or me as a Christian in general? >> IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's the >> only one who knows what >> right in the world. > > You'll burn child. >> That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the > romans said >> very unambiguously indeed that you cant do that sort of thing. > > Just >> another rabid fundy that cant even manage to work out what that > fool >> who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans told him to do. I do think you should talk to the docs about adjusting your meds. Tell them you can't keep focused and tend to repeat yourself, having problems controlling your anger and have are having some really bad self image issues and feel the need to try to make others feel small to make yourself feel bigger. Personally I'd suggest you mention adding Seroquel or if you are on it already upping the dose.                             Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:12:22 From: Rod Speed Subject: Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar? no spam <no@spam.net > wrote: >>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make >>>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say. >>>>> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be followed. >> It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic subset >> of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible. > So any priest anywhere can stand up and say that the Pope is full of hot air on his rulings on > homosexuals and letting women be priest and still keep his post in the church? Nope, so anyone is welcome to discuss whether a particular ruling makes sense, and sometimes even a later Pope decides that the shafting of Galileo made absolutely no sense, even tho he didnt mention Bruno, presumably because he went up in flames. And anyone with a clue just kept their mouths shut on the question of whether the sun revolved around the earth, whatever some damned pope or other ruled, until even that pathetic collection of utterly corrupt clowns managed to get the basics right on that eventually. > Sorry don't think so. 'think' again. >>>> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings change over time. >>> Not really, >> Corse it is. > Not the basic rules. Fraid so. ried priests is an absolutely classic example of that. Now those who choose leave a protestant cult and join the roman catholic cult dont even have to ditch the wife and kids anymore. Best eventually they'll have to allow priests to ry, just because the entire organisation will eventually implode if they dont. > But my point is even if the rules do change what does it matter if you ain't following them go > begin with? Plenty do make some attempt to follow the more sensible ones. And basically make an obscene gesture in the general direction of Rome on the most stupid rules like not using any contraception etc. I doubt too many in the west take any notice of the ban on condoms anymore, even if plenty of the fools in africa still refuse to use them because those fools in rome ban the use of them. We've seen plenty of the sillier rules like eating fish on fridays etc and attending communion regularly just ignored by most now. >>> you have rules and if you are a true <insert something here> you follow the rules. >> Its nothing like as black and white as that mindlessly superficial line. > Sure it is. No it isnt, most obviously with the sillier stuff like eating fish on fridays and sending your brats to church schools etc. > If you don't believe and follow the rules then you > shouldn't claim to be a member of the group. Mindlessly fanatical, as so often with you rabid fundys. Hordes in asia have a quiet grovel to most of the available deitys, presumably on the basis that its better to spread your bets or something. > Just because I eat pork or beef every meal does that mean I'm not a vegetarian!! OF COURSE IT > DOES. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you "I'm a vegetarian." if I don't follow the rules > and eat meat I am NOT a vegetarian NO MATTER how often I say I am. Its nothing like that black and white with eating fish on fridays etc. > I can claim to be a Christian but if I screw around on my wife and rob banks for a living am I a > Christian? Nope. But you are still a catholic if you dont always eat fish on fridays. > Therefore you saying that Christians screw around on their wife's and rob banks is foolish. Having fun thrashing that straw man ? >> A hell of a lot of what protestantism is about isnt about 'rules' > Such as? Its mostly about a direct communication with some purported god without the intervention of any priest or clergy with many of them and without any church organisation laying down any 'rules' etc. You're suppose to work out what that arsehole of a god wants you to do by reading that pathetic collection of fairy storys instead. Which can be no mean feat when that arsehole of a god had no problem with Abraham fucking his sister and Job fucking his daughters after that arsehole of a god chose to turn his wife into a pillar of salt for mearly daring to look back on what that arsehole of a god was doing to their home town. >>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules. >>>> And you don't 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ? >>>>> Seems they don't care as long as they keep >>>>> getting money from the non-Catholic Catholics. >> It aint priily about money. > Then explain to me why the non-Catholic Catholics are not tossed out of the church? Even the stupidest in rome have noticed that that sort of gung ho approach doesnt work and just produces stuff like protestantism and Lutherans etc. They've noticed that even burning them at the stake doesnt work either. > Why do they allow women who the priest KNOW have screwed around and had abortions to be ried > "in the church". For the same reason they allow priests who fuck children to remain in the church. Basically utterly misguided ideas about it being possible to get them to stop doing that when it isnt another example of one of those having managed to make it to bishop or cardinal without being caught etc. Even the last pope didnt demand that those be booted out of that obscenity of a church. >>> In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year riages with 5 kids to be annulled so >>> someone can get ried 'in the church' but not allowing divorce. >> Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money. > Hockey Pucks! You're actually stupid enough to 'think' that using silly words like that will stop you going up in flames ? > If it ain't about the money then what is it about? They have this rather naive idea that even those can change their ways. Thats true of most of the protestant cults too even o