"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0208181314.6d85b542 at posting.google.com...
> John Knut wrote:
>> > "OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
>> >> Mr. Knut: I have requested numerous times for you not to
> change the
> >> subject line. Are you so stupid as not to comprehend such a
> simple
> >> request, or are you simply unable to read properly?
>> > And I'm TELLING you to quit changing it, because there are others who
want
> > to follow this thread who are contributing much more than you ever
could,
> > and thus deserve the courtesy of having it remain consistent.
>> Mr. Knight:
>> I happened to have started a NEW thread. It is not about brain sizes,
> women
> or Einstein. It is not about the topics you are discussing with
> others. The
> topic of this particular thread happens to be about how you
> plan to
> implement your ideas.
>> Keeping the subject lines separate in reference to the different
> topics
> being discussed is a way to keep track of each separate topic. Now,
> why is
> that so complicated for you to figure out?
And I repeat: this thread is being followed by a number of people who for
consistency need to have it remain intact, many of whom are on
bionet.neuroscience.
If you want to start another thread, knock yourself out, but the only
responses you will receive will be to posts under the above subject header.
> > It's not merely workable. There's no other option.
>> > Do we know "what kind of a reaction this would cause"? Of course we
know.
> > We know that 89% of those who've responded to the poll
at
> > http://christianparty.net/poll.htm so far agree wholeheartedly.
>> > Did you take the poll?
>> Now you're using incredibly flawed logic. That poll says nothing
> about how "workable" your solution would be. Your poll is severely
> biased, because it is most likely those who agree with your agenda who
> would visit your site and answer it. Try again when they decide to
> take a nationwide poll interviewing a more balanced cross-section of
> the population.
We've found that internet polls are more reflective of REAL public opinion
than those from the "balanced cross-section of the population" you refer to.
Gallup has been trying for two decades to get their polls straight about
faggots, but they keep under-reporting public opposition to legalizing "gay
marriages" by huge margins. In state after state, voters keep passing
"anti-gay-marriage" laws in numbers which are three quarters higher than
Gallup predicted.
http://christianparty.net/gallup.htm
Why should we trust a Gallup poll again? They're controlled by jews.
They're even further off the mark on school prayer and abortion than they
are on faggotry. They're an obvious advocacy organization. Their polls
have a major anti-Christian, pro-jew bias. They never conducted a poll on
affirmative action before we did, and when they finally got around to it,
long after Prop 209 passed, they were again way off the mark, whereas our
poll on Proposition 209 was off by only 2%. They're dominated by feminazi
"opinions". They're essentially criminally stupid, or criminally biased, or
both.
The fact that three quarters to 91% of those who've responded that they want
the jews OUT means this is a patently workable solution, with no further
discussion required.
> > You obviously don't even understand Christianity,
>> Nonsense -- I do understand Christianity. Christianity is about
> following the path of Christ, which you haven't been demonstrating.
>
Your powers of observation are on par with "women's intuition" [read: you're
dead wrong]. You don't know what Christianity is, and you're incapable of
it. So spare us the lectures and focus on the topic you think you want to
pursue.
> > so certainly someone
> > like you is incapable of telling the difference between Naziism
and
> > Christianity, much less of understanding Naziism.
>> Mea culpa, I haven't bothered to educate myself on the different sects
> of hate groups. To me, you're all variations of the same baboon --
> angry, simpleminded atavists who display a "blame this birthgroup"
> perspective. (This goes for man-hating feminists as well).
>> OK, so not all antisemitics are Nazis, but that's what most Americans
> associate them with. But I did give you the benefit of the doubt: I
> said that if you were not a Nazi, you are something just as bad. (A
> "Knutzi", perhaps).
You haven't bothered to educate yourself on lots of subjects because you're
uneducable. You were already reminded who the Semites are, that jews aren't
Semites (nor are they Hebrews, descendants of Abraham, nor Israelites), yet
you lapse back to the tried and true feminazi buzz words.
Christianity and Naziism aren't different "sects" of the same pew, and your
inference that they are makes you eligible for a one way cruse on the USS
Madagascar.
>> > This is the typical feminazi Pavlovian Dog Reaction, though, which
means
> > that you can quit denying that you're a feminazi.
>> This is also flawed logic, a faulty syllogism. A "feminazi" is
> someone who believes women have superiority over men, believes in
> censorship and punishment for politically incorrect speech, etc. I
> have expressed none of these sentiments. Assuming you were a Nazi for
> your racism and antisemitism says nothing about my opinions on sex and
> gender issues. But, this tangent is again digressing from the
> original point of the thread.
This "tangent" is one you introduced by continually inferring that
Christianity and Naziism are just different "sects".
> > Is this the double standard you hoped to impose so that you could
engage
> > in "productive discourse leading to eventual solutions of problems,
I
> > (we?) am just curious"?
>> As I said, I was interested in discussing workable solutions, and here
> you are going off on a nit-picky tangent regarding the differences
> between certain hate groups. Hate groups are hate groups - their
> motives and effects are the same, whether or not they have decided to
> target jews, christians, native americans, men, women, etc.
>
Does calling jews the following words qualify one as a member of one of your
"hate groups"?
"You brood of vipers", they will be "thrown into the fire", "hypocrites!",
"babbling like pagans", "wicked", "adulterous", "Ninevah will ... condemn
[you]", "you break the command of God", "teachings are but rules taught by
men", "will be pulled up by the roots", "blind guides", "blind man", "guard
against ... the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees", "you yourself do
not enter ... the kingdom of heaven", "blind fools", "blind men", "Blind
Pharisee", "you are like whitewashed tombs", "you are the descendants of
those who murdered the prophets", "you snakes", "condemned to hell",
"Pharisees ... rejected God's purpose for themselves", "you foolish people",
"you are like unmarked graves", "you build tombs for the prophets, yet it
was your forefathers who killed them", "will be held responsible for the
blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the
world".
Inquiring minds need to know.
> > What exactly did you hope to accomplish with this diatribe? Why don't
you
> > explain exactly who you "think" "hates" who.
>> > This is a childish game, for sure, but if this is the game you want
to
> > play, then YOU describe the ground rules.
>> So, using words like "nigger" and "mud people" isn't "childish"? And
> what does the above have to do with feminism? And, haven't you ever
> considered implementing solutions that do NOT target specific birth
> groups? The whole point is, that's your agenda. Targeting birth and
> ethnic groups.
>> (BTW, I don't "hate" you. "Bemused at your annoying behavior" would
> be a better description.)
The word "hate" is coming from you and your type, and no place else. And
THIS is what's childish, not using proper English words which are STILL a
part of the English language, even with your attempts to rewrite the
language. Does Rush Limbaugh "hate" feminazis when he calls them feminazis?
Yes, certain "birth groups" must be targeted, because those "birth groups",
like niggers and Mexicans, are responsible for the majority of the crime in
this country, the breakdown of morals, miscegenation, divorce, nigger music,
the destruction of once pristine inner cities and suburbs, all the way to
coining words like nigger and honky and blanco americano.
Which do you think would be the most productive?:
1) Preventing niggers from calling you honkey or Mexicans from calling you
a norte americano, or
2) Removing these two specific and well identified "birth groups" who are
known to commit 95% of the homicides in this country?
> > My nigger friends call me a honkey, and they even call me a nigger
when
> > they're in a good mood.
>> How wonderful for you. Dubious personal anecdotes don't make for a
> good argument, however.
>
The point is that you do not and cannot ever under the "context" you think
you can explain to me.
> >>> Wouldn't it be more accurate to state "OCCASIONALLY OFFENSIVE"?
> Or in
> >>> your little feminazi mind, do niggers just not count? Is that
> it? You
> >>> don't really care what niggers say, because it's only what you
> honkeys
> >>> say that counts. In your vernacular, is it really "USUALLY
> OFFENSIVE" to
> >>> say nigger?
>> >> Calm down, John, you're frothing at the mouth again.
>> > This was a paraphrase of *your*words, you fool.
>> Those words were quoted directly out of the Merriam Webster Online
> Dictionary, boy. Pay attention now and stop looking at the squirrels.
>
No they weren't. You added the capitalization. You did that and then
proclaimed "Calm down, John, you're frothing at the mouth again" when all I
did was quote it back to you improperly. Here is the online version:
Main Entry: nig·ger
Pronunciation: 'ni-g&r
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from
Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger
Date: 1700
1 usually offensive, see usage paragraph below : a black person
Do you see any capitalization here, except where it belongs? No.
> > And I quote: "USUALLY OFFENSIVE".
>> > Does that shouting look at all familiar to you?
>> Yup, that was the emphasis I added to the words that were quoted from
> the Merriam Online Dictionary, since you seem to have a somewhat
> difficult time comprehending what the majority of civilized Americans
> over the age of 6 probably automatically understand, and the
> dictionary has confirmed.
What you meant to say is that "It's my opinion that ...", because this
emphasis is not in the dictionary, and what's missing from this definition
is what the very people who are 99.99% of the users of this word think of
it--it's not "USUALLY OFFENSIVE".
They do not think it's offensive, no matter how many times the jews tell you
or them that it is, and no matter how loud you scream.
> Rage and spittle all you want to, I can't really think of any good
> reason why anyone would choose to use such language when there are
> alternatives. Using vulgar vernacular does nothing to help your case
> except make you look like a lowbrow with obviously ulterior motives.
There are no acceptable alternatives to nigger. All the words you
"liberals" and jews and feminazis dream up to try to keep from speaking the
TRUTH have backfired on you, which is why you keep changing it. The latest
version, "African American", describes NOBODY. NOBODY understands what it
means. Niggers like Walter Williams claim they HATE the phrase.
And it is demeaning. And most "African Americans" I know are White. And
niggers in Africa HATE the phrase (and they also hate American niggers
anyway).
It's odd that you're so upset that someone would call a nigger a nigger,
when you "liberals" seem to think that calling an anti-Nazi a "Nazi" is
perfectly acceptable, wouldn't you say?
>> > Drop dead. Your ability to "reason" is on par with the typical output
of
> > "women's intuition", namely, negative knowledge.
>> Nonsense. Your knowledge of statistics be damned, being knowlegeable
> in one area doesn't necessarily indicate intelligence in all other
> areas, and to me you are sadly lacking in a more comprehensive
> overview of the world. It's like wanting to pretend certain other
> things don't exist and since you don't know how to deal with them in
> real life, your only solution is to hope they go away.
>
After all of the posts that you've read so far, it's almost incomprehensible
that you still can't paraphrase the points any more accurately than this.
You still have them almost exactly backwards.
> "Having lots of knowledge" does not necessarily equal "intelligence",
> and "intelligence" doesn't equate to "wisdom", either. All you've
> demonstrated so far is your lack of the latter two, in that you know
> how to work statistics, and to separate groups of people into
> categories, but not much beyond the simplistic and unrealistic
> solution of imposing your will upon others and "making them go away".
> You haven't the wisdom nor the intelligence to attempt to approach a
> problem in ways other than what emanates from deep within your limbic
> system. Your motives and solutions remain those of a beast -- as if
> you were a monkey with a software program implanted in its brain.
You can't even state the agenda correctly, you obviously didn't understand a
single one of the statistics which was quoted, the major issues elude you,
but now you want to be somebody's psychiatrist?
You're fired. Get back in the kitchen where you belong. And don't burn the
coffee.
John Knight
