A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #381  
Old November 19th 04, 02:25 AM
Neil Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
linda > wrote:

> i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still
> say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense.
> ;-)


Jesus christ on a pogo stick lady, not one person "came to the
Duke's defense."
There -were- [however] numerous questions as to the accuracy of
the claims that you had made. Somehow you managed to morph that
into coming to the DUKE's defense. [rolls eyes]

> however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ...


Then why don't you do the right thing and learn to trim your
replies instead of leaving a boatload of irrelevant text attached
to your posts. That way you won't come across as -quite- the
usenet newbie.
Ads
  #382  
Old November 19th 04, 02:25 AM
Neil Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
linda > wrote:

> i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still
> say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense.
> ;-)


Jesus christ on a pogo stick lady, not one person "came to the
Duke's defense."
There -were- [however] numerous questions as to the accuracy of
the claims that you had made. Somehow you managed to morph that
into coming to the DUKE's defense. [rolls eyes]

> however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ...


Then why don't you do the right thing and learn to trim your
replies instead of leaving a boatload of irrelevant text attached
to your posts. That way you won't come across as -quite- the
usenet newbie.
  #383  
Old November 19th 04, 02:27 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.

>>
>>Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

>
>
> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; you
> are.
>
>
>>You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the
>>criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both
>>parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a
>>marriage must be between one man and one woman.

>
>
> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but
> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and dogs are
> not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, rocks and dogs do
> not write laws. Religious and political beliefs are held by humans, not by
> trees, rocks or dogs.


So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting it
with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think
your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you
deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only to
anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you
have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours -
simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses
rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria
than what you arbitrarily decide on.

>>I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your
>>very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own
>>religious beliefs) on others.

>
>
> I call your bluff: How?


You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all
I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two
humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria.

>>Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
>>other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on
>>others?

>
>
> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for you
> about the concept of "consenting adults"?


Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an
arbitrary criteria.

>>One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical
>>reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not
>>brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical
>>problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship"
>>(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true
>>marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually"
>>discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro
>>and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think.
>> So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis
>>"marriage".

>
>
> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your tortured
> hypotheticals.


Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - it
is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the
messenger.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #384  
Old November 19th 04, 02:27 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>>Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted.

>>
>>Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

>
>
> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; you
> are.
>
>
>>You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the
>>criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both
>>parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a
>>marriage must be between one man and one woman.

>
>
> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but
> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and dogs are
> not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, rocks and dogs do
> not write laws. Religious and political beliefs are held by humans, not by
> trees, rocks or dogs.


So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting it
with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think
your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you
deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only to
anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you
have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours -
simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses
rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria
than what you arbitrarily decide on.

>>I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your
>>very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own
>>religious beliefs) on others.

>
>
> I call your bluff: How?


You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all
I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two
humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria.

>>Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
>>other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on
>>others?

>
>
> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for you
> about the concept of "consenting adults"?


Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an
arbitrary criteria.

>>One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical
>>reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not
>>brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical
>>problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship"
>>(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true
>>marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually"
>>discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro
>>and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think.
>> So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis
>>"marriage".

>
>
> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your tortured
> hypotheticals.


Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - it
is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the
messenger.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #385  
Old November 19th 04, 02:43 AM
Sparky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Linda wrote:

<snip>

Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD".
Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text.

TIA

  #386  
Old November 19th 04, 02:43 AM
Sparky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Linda wrote:

<snip>

Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD".
Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text.

TIA

  #387  
Old November 19th 04, 04:15 AM
WraithCobra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is
>>>> noted.
>>>
>>> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

>>
>>
>> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together;
>> you are.
>>
>>
>>> You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point
>>> that the criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two
>>> *humans*, both parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than
>>> the criteria that a marriage must be between one man and one woman.

>>
>>
>> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but
>> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and
>> dogs are not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees,
>> rocks and dogs do not write laws. Religious and political beliefs
>> are held by humans, not by trees, rocks or dogs.

>
> So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting
> it
> with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think
> your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you
> deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only
> to
> anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you
> have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours -
> simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses
> rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria
> than what you arbitrarily decide on.
>
>>> I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose
>>> your very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call
>>> them your own religious beliefs) on others.

>>
>>
>> I call your bluff: How?

>
> You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all
> I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two
> humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria.
>
>>> Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
>>> other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view
>>> on others?

>>
>>
>> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for
>> you about the concept of "consenting adults"?

>
> Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an
> arbitrary criteria.
>
>>> One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for
>>> medical reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So
>>> why not brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister -
>>> no medical problem there since no children can be produced by that
>>> "relationship" (we'll overlook for the moment one of the main
>>> purposes of true marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would
>>> be "sexually" discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro
>>> and bro but not bro and sis - clearly a case of sexual
>>> discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. So by liberal/ACLU-think,
>>> you'd then have to allow sis and sis "marriage".

>>
>>
>> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your
>> tortured hypotheticals.

>
> Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right -
> it
> is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the
> messenger.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
> World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total
> Privacy via Encryption =---



  #388  
Old November 19th 04, 04:15 AM
WraithCobra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is
>>>> noted.
>>>
>>> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest.

>>
>>
>> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together;
>> you are.
>>
>>
>>> You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point
>>> that the criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two
>>> *humans*, both parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than
>>> the criteria that a marriage must be between one man and one woman.

>>
>>
>> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but
>> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and
>> dogs are not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees,
>> rocks and dogs do not write laws. Religious and political beliefs
>> are held by humans, not by trees, rocks or dogs.

>
> So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting
> it
> with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think
> your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you
> deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only
> to
> anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you
> have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours -
> simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses
> rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria
> than what you arbitrarily decide on.
>
>>> I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose
>>> your very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call
>>> them your own religious beliefs) on others.

>>
>>
>> I call your bluff: How?

>
> You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all
> I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two
> humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria.
>
>>> Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no
>>> other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view
>>> on others?

>>
>>
>> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for
>> you about the concept of "consenting adults"?

>
> Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an
> arbitrary criteria.
>
>>> One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for
>>> medical reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So
>>> why not brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister -
>>> no medical problem there since no children can be produced by that
>>> "relationship" (we'll overlook for the moment one of the main
>>> purposes of true marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would
>>> be "sexually" discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro
>>> and bro but not bro and sis - clearly a case of sexual
>>> discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. So by liberal/ACLU-think,
>>> you'd then have to allow sis and sis "marriage".

>>
>>
>> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your
>> tortured hypotheticals.

>
> Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right -
> it
> is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the
> messenger.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
> World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total
> Privacy via Encryption =---



  #389  
Old November 19th 04, 04:16 AM
WraithCobra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD".
> Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text.
>
> TIA



  #390  
Old November 19th 04, 04:16 AM
WraithCobra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD".
> Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text.
>
> TIA



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy Michael Barnes Driving 4 January 4th 05 07:47 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec [email protected] Chrysler 37 November 18th 04 05:18 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy Paul Antique cars 3 November 9th 04 07:54 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec indago Chrysler 7 November 8th 04 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.