brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Mon Aug 26 20:31:40 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> Living by Mr. August's version of Christian principles would be like
>> living in a monastery.  We have the choice not to do so.
>
>READ: you INSIST on your "right to commit adultery", and being prohibited
>from doing so "would be like living in a monastery".

That is not what I said, and I refuse to allow you to twist my words
by your phony "readings".  I mean what >I< say, not what YOU say.

>Understood.

You understand nothing, including the English language.  This is
because you are an alien nincompoop.

>Most Americans, even most women, think you feminazis and "liberals" are the
>most disgusting creatures walking the Earth.

Coming from you, that is a compliment.  We would LOVE to disgust you
so much that you LEAVE.

>Now, it could be the jews, or the government itself, but the likelihood that
>it's the moron "liberals" on this forum are zero unless they have access to
>all internet addresses.

Everyone has access to all Internet addresses.

>> >Children use this computer when naked women pop up all over the place.
>>
>> You have children using your computer? Then they are exposed to YOUR
>> filth, which is worse than any naked woman.
>
>The feeling is mutual.  The last person in the world whom my children should
>be exposed to are you feminazis and "liberals".

A shame that they are growing up in a world in which YOU are the
loser.

>> Really?  I've never met her myself.  My kids would love to.  I haven't
>> even seen her picture for at least a week or two (I haven't kept
>> track).
>
>This would be considered child abuse in most parts of the world,

Show me one law that says that my seeing a picture of Britney, or my
children wanting to meet her, is "child abuse".

You love to lie, don't you, loser.

>> >The nigger music is the vilest, most degenerate form of pornography
>imaginable.
>>
>> Pornography seems to be in the mind of the beholder.  If you don't
>> like it, don't listen to it.
>>
>> >But mention the Holy Bible, and 20 million jews and niggers and feminazis
>> >and other muds and "liberals" all of a sudden "feel insulted".
>>
>> I am more insulted by your presence on the nets than I am by a mention
>> of the Holy Bible.
>>
>> I am insulted by your sloppy research, and by claims that you pull out
>> of your strange orifice, which are so easily disproved.
>
>You've never "disproved" a single statement or stat.

I have disproved most of what you write, leaving it nothing more than
your unsupported nincompoop opinion.

>> I've never seen a kid charged with a crime for carrying a Bible in
>> their school bag.
>
>It's in the news, regularly.  It's all over the internet.

Show me one.  Loser.

>> If a member of the male sex wishes that, they can go join Richard in
>> his monastery.  That is what monasteries are designed for - to lock
>> men away from the sinful world.
>
>It's also what government's are for,

Not since the Taliban was booted.

>> We don't care what he feels his responsibilities are.  We are human
>> beings with our own rights, and do not need every Christian thinking
>> that they need to be our parents.
>
>ahh, here it is!  Finally, an admission that you're a jew!

I don't see the word "Jew" in that paragraph at all.  Have you had
your eyes checked?

>To all jews, upholding Christian principles is tantamount to parental
>authority?

I don't know.  Ask all Jews.

>What you want is license, not the rule of law.  You want license to do what
>you "feel" is right while denying men like Richard the ability to even live
>as a Christian in his own Christian nation.

I am not denying his right to live as a Christian.  But if he wants a
Christian nation, he needs to go to a country with that religion
established.  England, Ireland, and Vatican City qualify.

>You *insist* on your "right to commit adultery", just as the slut Betty
>Friedan and all her minions insist on.

I do?  Where?  

>> He does not.  This Christian is not behind him.  The multitude of
>> Christians in Europe who have fewer taboos on sexual display are
>> obviously not behind him.
>
>You're confusing pornography (or "sexual display") with NON-sexual dress
>customs.  The French don't consider the display of the woman's breast on the
>beaches of Monaco to be "sexual display",

But I'll bet that Richard August does.

>You "know" even less about what Christians know than you "know" about
>physics (which is less than zero).

I have a degree in the subject.  You probably don't have a degree in
anything.

>> >Many countries have succeeded in banning American nigger music and
>> >pornography.
>>
>> Which ones are these?
>
>China, Russia, France, India, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, and even some African
>countries, have had the brains to refuse to let "American" jewish
>pornography into their coutries.

Proof?

>There have been some lapses in some areas,

In other words, you can't prove it, but will call the exceptions
"lapses".

>> >And those are the countries which don't have the tremendous
>> >social problems we have.
>>
>> If they exist, they don't have our freedoms either.  In most of them,
>> you would not be able to post your BS on the net.  You are free to
>> move to any of them if you choose.  We won't miss you.
>
>There's a huge difference between "freedom" and "license".

I have not demanded anything.  We have freedom, and do not need to
demand it.

>You're not demanding "freedom"--you're demanding "license".

I don't, but the words mean the same thing.

Mirriam Webster:
>Main Entry: 1li·cense 
>Variant(s): or li·cence  /'lI-s&n(t)s/
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French licence, from Latin licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licEre to be permitted
>Date: 14th century
>1 a : permission to act b : freedom of action
>3 a : freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b : disregard for standards of personal conduct : LICENTIOUSNESS

Funny, I see the word "freedom" in that definition.

>You want only the "right to commit adultery" with no personal consequences,

No, I don't, as a matter of fact. In fact I cannot imagine that
adultery COULD have "no personal consequences".

>and 84-90% of Americans DISAGREE with you.

Number pulled from strange orifice.

>Which poll do you think is the most accurate:
>
>1)  Our own poll, which shows 84% want adultery laws to be upheld, or

You mean the ones that don't exist in many states, including
California?

>2) The Gallup Poll which shows that 90% believe adultery is "always wrong"
>or "almost always wrong"?

Gallup is almost certainly more accurate than nincompoop.

>Either way, your demand for "license" is not just amoral--it's illegal, and
>it's unpopular.

1.  It is not my demand.
2.  I know that freedom is inherently amoral, or it is not "freedom".
3.  It is NOT illegal.
4.  Those who practice it (and I am NOT one) don't much care whether
it is unpopular.

>This Christian nation

Which one?  The U.S. is not one.

>Your fellow parasitic minority of jews, niggers, feminazis, faggots, and
>other "liberals" need to go, just as the Holy Bible demands.  Altogether,
>you're less than 15% of the population,

Blacks alone are 13% of the population, expected to rise to 15% by
2050 (Table 14, Statistical Abstract).  Gore, supported by what you
call "liberals", got a majority of the popular vote in the last
election.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list