War on humanity

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:43:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:Fucuc.9183$oh7.5111@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
newsS0uc.14926$mm1.915@fed1read06...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com...

Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim. I've called his
bluff, several times[0], and he either shuts up or switches to ad hominem
name-calling.

Since he included "Dummy" in his last posting ro me, it looks like he has
already surrendered.
-----------------------
Nonsense and lies, when you can't make rational sense and are losing
at argument, you demand cites and whine to divert attention from the
discussion because you can't reason logically. If you can't stay on
topic and argue from structure then you have no MIND!

-Steve

Structure needs substance to hold it up. So how about backing up your
claims? Are you aware that you sound more and more like JSD? Are you
now going to call me a rightist?
- YD.
---------------------

If you're serious:
Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:40:51 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

schnipperoo-DAH!

-----------------
EVERYTHING that I say works, works. Or I don't SAY!

-Steve

You say but don't show.
---------------

Not here, we're still talking ABOUT "talking".

They have forced the thread away from topic to a meta-thread about
their demand for proof which they would obviously be unwilling to
concede no matter how persuasive.

They did this to avoid the outcome in which they would obviously
lose a structral syllogistic argument.

Those tribes surviving by sharing, there should be enough > antropological studies floating around that you could
come up with at least one little web page.
- YD.
----------------------

You don't understand: I've been doing this on Usenet a VERY long
time, and I have discovered that Rightist partisans will NEVER
allow you to engage them in logical structural arguments, because
they have been beaten at them consistently in the past and avoid
them like the plague, and they do this by either citing phony
experts not present to be interrogated, thus shifting burden, or
by demanding proof they will never accept, no matter what, again,
dishonestly shifting their burden off on others or onto you. They
are disingenuous and dishonest, and you cannot permit them to do
that, you must either demand they respond logically, or simply
insult them to degrade them to your audience, there are no other
options.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BAAEE2.20F@armory.com...

We obviously lived in communistic tribes for 100,000 years,

Obviously? To whom?

Do you have a reference to support that claim?

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BAAFDF.4683@armory.com...

Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

I didn't ask for "proof". I asked for a reference.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <MPG.1b246e2e85487dd2989930@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:

In article <c9dugg010nv@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield_member@newsguy.com says...
SioL wrote...

Reg Edwards wrote ...
Most, if not all, of the bad things come from leftists

It's a matter of opnion. Depends on whether you are a leftist
or a rightist.

I'm a leftist, definitely. Ask Mr. Dyson.

It seems most of here are to the left of Mr. Dyson, some
only a little perhaps, but most of us a lot I imagine.

Nah! Some of us are more right than Dyson. ...right, too! ;-)

Actually, I am more 'liberal' (in the actual definition of the

word) than most leftists apparently are in the US. (I am
reserving the possibility that there are some open minded leftists
in places other than the US, but it is unlikely.) An open-minded
leftist would be able to moderately suppress their reflexive Bush
hatred and honestly review and probably eventually condemn John
Kerry's errant behavior. Geesh,
I would have DEFINITELY voted for Clinton over and above
more than several GOP alternatives. However, my own position
against Clinton wasn't based upon hatred, but on disgust. My
opinion about Clinton was more malleable and open minded than
the current Democrats 'politics first above the welfare of
the USA' mentality of the US left. Alot like the 'party
first' attitudes of the Stalinist states, the Democrats seem
to have similar attitudes. Perhaps this is one reason why the
Baathists and Saddam were held in such high esteem by so
many people on the left??!?!?!? (Of course, that isn't the
reason, but Saddam was 'loved' by the French and their ilk because
of the payoffs to France, Germany, Russia and Clinton's friend, Rich.)

For a leftist to be so extremly wrong about so many things, it
is almost impossible to accurately claim that person to be
'liberal' or 'open minded.' As a simple exemplar that
shows the kindness and 'reaching out' of the typical American
leftist, refer to the 'good cheer' and 'pleasant personality
open to discussion' of Al Franken. Al Franken, being the
perfect exemplar of the Democrat party, perhaps the most
politically unbiased (and not idealogically GOP or Democrat)
about Franken would be O'Reilly's apparent opinion. (I
can understand Bill's irritation about Franken, because
even if Franken had all of my political beliefs, he would
appear to be a festering pile of biological debris -- just
of differing political bias ). For claiming that O'Reilly
seems to be GOPish, it is more probably true that he is more
politically like John Kennedy.... This would tend to make him
more GOPish nowadays, but there are still good Dems like Bayh
and Lieberman (but he has allowed himself be tainted by
association with a real nutcase in his Vice Presidential run.)

John

 

[Rich Grise]

"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b24719b5e27352f989932@news1.news.adelphia.net...

In article <c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com says...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

How can you say that!

Obviously, somebody told him to.

Rich

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com says...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

How can you say that!
Keith
------------------

Simple. You cannot change your mind by an effort of will without
reason, and if you change your mind due to reason, then you are
externally caused by your life experience. This means that there
is no such thing as "Free Will". You can lie about changing your
mind to try to win the argument, but we all know better. The notion
of "Free Will" is a western myth based on the desire of the RC
church to punish people for their desires, which supposedly they
should be able then to control, and cannot. It goes along with
the confessional and was used to manipulate people by pretending
they could stop having human nature and could control their own
thoughts, which is merely insipid mind-control dogma.


-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

You are free to have that opinion.
---------------

Except that you're not, you're stuck believing what your life
experience has compelled you to believe, or what others have
brainwashed you with.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[SioL]

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:c9dugg010nv@drn.newsguy.com...

SioL wrote...

I'm a leftist, definitely. Ask Mr. Dyson.

It seems most of here are to the left of Mr. Dyson, some
only a little perhaps, but most of us a lot I imagine.

Thanks,
- Win

How is that possible? He calls himself a centrist, right?
People should be evenly distributed left and right of his persona,
given a big-enough population.

SioL

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BAAEE2.20F@armory.com...


We obviously lived in communistic tribes for 100,000 years,

Obviously? To whom?
------------------------

Everyone who has bothered to read anything about it. Don't tell me
you thought we had banks, currency, and single family homes back
then.

Do you have a reference to support that claim?
----------------------------

Plenty! But you can get your own.
So if you get tired of posturing you could go look it up.
But then you're WAAAAY too dishonest to go do THAT!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BAAFDF.4683@armory.com...

Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

I didn't ask for "proof". I asked for a reference.
-----------------------------------

I don't know you well enough to give you a reference, Dummy!

They mean the same.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <MPG.1b246e2e85487dd2989930@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> writes:
In article <c9dugg010nv@drn.newsguy.com>,
Winfield_member@newsguy.com says...
SioL wrote...

Reg Edwards wrote ...
Most, if not all, of the bad things come from leftists

It's a matter of opnion. Depends on whether you are a leftist
or a rightist.

I'm a leftist, definitely. Ask Mr. Dyson.

It seems most of here are to the left of Mr. Dyson, some
only a little perhaps, but most of us a lot I imagine.

Nah! Some of us are more right than Dyson. ...right, too! ;-)

Actually, I am more 'liberal' (in the actual definition of the
word) than most leftists apparently are in the US.
---------------

Reactionaries say this same shit all the time, they learned it to
try to confuse people who think they're absolute trash because
they're tightists. Our

(I am
reserving the possibility that there are some open minded leftists
in places other than the US, but it is unlikely.) An open-minded
leftist would be able to moderately suppress their reflexive Bush
hatred and honestly review and probably eventually condemn John
Kerry's errant behavior. Geesh,
---------------------

Ain't any.

I would have DEFINITELY voted for Clinton over and above
more than several GOP alternatives. However, my own position
against Clinton wasn't based upon hatred, but on disgust.
-------------------

And that just means you're an antisexual Fundy reactionary.

My
opinion about Clinton was more malleable and open minded than
the current Democrats 'politics first above the welfare of
the USA' mentality of the US left. Alot like the 'party
first' attitudes of the Stalinist states, the Democrats seem
to have similar attitudes.
-----------------------

No, you just don't understand Democrats. That's a Truth about you.
You don't "get" it, so you're inevitably wrong about it. Also:
The Left posits Left politics as the ONLY WAY to ensure the REAL
welfare of the USA and the World! We see YOUR notion of safety as
phony, and you as dishonest and partisan in your posturing here.

Perhaps this is one reason why the
Baathists and Saddam were held in such high esteem by so
many people on the left??!?!?!?
----------------------

Never happened. You're a Liar.

(Of course, that isn't the
reason, but Saddam was 'loved' by the French and their ilk because
of the payoffs to France, Germany, Russia and Clinton's friend, Rich.)
--------------------------------

Inaccurate and Unrelated.

For a leftist to be so extremly wrong about so many things, it
is almost impossible to accurately claim that person to be
'liberal' or 'open minded.'
-----------------------------

Compared to a Shiriya islamic law state, Saddam was annoying but
harmless. Anyone with a brain preferred him to some of those clowns!

As a simple exemplar that
shows the kindness and 'reaching out' of the typical American
leftist, refer to the 'good cheer' and 'pleasant personality
open to discussion' of Al Franken. Al Franken, being the
perfect exemplar of the Democrat party, perhaps the most
politically unbiased (and not idealogically GOP or Democrat)
about Franken would be O'Reilly's apparent opinion.
--------

Riiiight.

(I
can understand Bill's irritation about Franken, because
even if Franken had all of my political beliefs, he would
appear to be a festering pile of biological debris -- just
of differing political bias ).
---------------------

That's just because either you or O'Reilly is antisemitic.

For claiming that O'Reilly
seems to be GOPish, it is more probably true that he is more
politically like John Kennedy....
----------------------------

You're insane. O'Reilly *IS* the Disingenuous GOP!!

This would tend to make him
more GOPish nowadays, but there are still good Dems like Bayh
and Lieberman (but he has allowed himself be tainted by
association with a real nutcase in his Vice Presidential run.)
John
--------------------------

Ew, tainted! YOU'RE tainted!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Reg Edwards]

The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

You are free to have that opinion.

I have no choice in the matter.

 

[Reg Edwards]

The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

You are free to have that opinion.
---------------
Except that you're not, you're stuck believing what your life
experience has compelled you to believe, or what others have
brainwashed you with.

Yes. I have no options. I am obliged to say this.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 31 May 2004 04:01:05 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BAAEE2.20F@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 30 May 2004 06:00:10 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40B9794D.7562@armory.com>:

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim.
---------------
That's because I NEVER make claims that I NEED ANY argument for
OTHER than an OBVIOUS logical structural argument from the known,
and I do this IN ORDER to prevent morons like you from merely trying
to divert the argument by insipidly whining for "cites" when you
prove that you can't even THINK for yourself and that you have NO
deep reasons behind the shit in your head.

Trust me.
--------------------------
I don't need to trust a ninny who can't think logically.


When I have seen people ask your cites, it's because your
argument is NOT logical.
---------------------------
Nonsense. Alleged only by people with ulterior vicious political
and defective phiolosophical motives to lie. They KNOW they can't
out-reason me, and so they HAVE to resort to that.

One cannot outreason a printed propaganda pamphlet either.
-----------------
Of course they can, if it's wrong.


Like for exampe the Bible.
The Universe was created 5000 years ago in 5 days (IIRC, but likely not),
----------------------
Since everyone knows that mountains don't disappear or form in a few
days, that is obviously ridiculous. And since everyone knows no one
was actually around to see it, such an assertion as the bible is even
more ridiculous!! There are an enormous number of reasons why such a
book must be regarded as a fairy tale, if only because we have no good
reason to believe that any human now alive can be trusted to have
conveyed a supposed "true account" to the present without having been
tempted to screw with it along the way in order to deceive people to
acquire power and manipulate others.


and Waltz Communism is the only possible programming for billions of
neural networks each made of billons of neurons, some of these networks
having very different interests, so the WALTZ ONE FOR ALL solution always
works?
-------------------
Of course it does, they operate due to the same basic genome.
The differences between people are quite tiny, otherwise we
wouldn't even be able to communicate with each other.


Never mind, on to other things....
JP
-------------------------
People thinking they differ that much is merely erroneous, and any
such belief in such differences, other than the emotional disorders
caused by abuse and greed which must be eliminated, are simply
brainwashing.

We obviously lived in communistic tribes for 100,000 years, and
evolved to live that way for far longer. We could not have defeated
predators and the elements with the weak body we have, compared to
the predators upon us, without an evolved ethic in our real human
nature of either of extreme group cooperation, or extinction as the
only alternatives.
Don't you think diversity has something to do with it?

In the same way our diversity in 'systems' may help us survive too.
What makes you think YOU are not in the 'emotional disorder' category?
See, the way YOU see the world, is set by the filters in your brian (in neural
nets you say 'weights' perhaps), and may well not be what the world is really
like.
For this same reason you cannot be 100% objective.
Something may happen that makes you change your views, it already happened,
you were not born with these!
JP

 

[KR Williams]

In article <40BAD69E.1DBE@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com says...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

How can you say that!
Keith
------------------
Simple. You cannot change your mind by an effort of will without
reason, and if you change your mind due to reason, then you are
externally caused by your life experience. This means that there
is no such thing as "Free Will". You can lie about changing your
mind to try to win the argument, but we all know better. The notion
of "Free Will" is a western myth based on the desire of the RC
church to punish people for their desires, which supposedly they
should be able then to control, and cannot. It goes along with
the confessional and was used to manipulate people by pretending
they could stop having human nature and could control their own
thoughts, which is merely insipid mind-control dogma.

Whoosh!

--
Keith

 

[KR Williams]

In article <40BAABD4.1E5D@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

Rich Grise wrote:

"Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote in message
newsvouc.61511$hv5.7225@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
X-No-Archive: yes
"Reg Edwards" wrote
: Most, if not all, of the bad things come from leftists
:
: ======================
:
: It's a matter of opinion. Depends on whether you are a leftist
or a rightist.

Or whether you understand the difference between good and Bad,
right and wrong!


That's simple. If you're an authoritarian of any stripe, then if
it feels good it's bad, and if it feels bad, it's good.

Cheers!
Rich
-----------
Then I'm not an authoritarian. Another Rightist lie put to death.

In your utopia you'd have all those who don't agree with you put
to death. That is rather authoritarian, Steve.

--
Keith

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:54:06 +0200, "SioL" <spam@spam.com> wrote:

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:c9dugg010nv@drn.newsguy.com...
SioL wrote...

I'm a leftist, definitely. Ask Mr. Dyson.

It seems most of here are to the left of Mr. Dyson, some
only a little perhaps, but most of us a lot I imagine.

Thanks,
- Win

How is that possible? He calls himself a centrist, right?
People should be evenly distributed left and right of his persona,
given a big-enough population.

---
What he calls himself and what he is are two completely different
things.

He calls himself a centrist because he wants to believe that he's a
sensible person who's found the "middle way" and has errant camps
which disagree with him equally to his left _and_ to his right.

What he is is a self-serving, opportunistic poser who refuses to
believe that he could be wrong.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 05:08:47 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

Actually, I am more 'liberal' (in the actual definition of the
word) than most leftists apparently are in the US.

---
Actually, you're a deluded, lying piece of shit with a "my way or the
highway" mentality.

--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:c9epdr$ii8$2@hercules.btinternet.com...

The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

You are free to have that opinion.

I have no choice in the matter.


So, who exactly is operating you?

Thanks,
Rich