St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:

> .... Timothy .... wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
>
>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
>> meant to be easy, does it?
>
> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
> especially when real damage has been done in the real world

Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
him and his family?

> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
>
> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.

Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
carry on with for years?

> Real
> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.

Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.

On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
>
> > .... Timothy .... wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
>
> >> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
> >> meant to be easy, does it?
>
> > No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
> > especially when real damage has been done in the real world
>
> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
> him and his family?
>
> > outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
> > and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
> > genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
> > sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
>
> > At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
> > and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
> > ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
> > in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
> > achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
> > screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
>
> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
> carry on with for years?
>
> > Real
> > people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
> > one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
> > if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
> > in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
> > medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
>
> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.

How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone? Is your
behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?

Rupert wrote:

> On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
>> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
>>
>>> .... Timothy .... wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
>>>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
>>>> meant to be easy, does it?
>>> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
>>> especially when real damage has been done in the real world
>> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
>> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
>> him and his family?
>>
>>> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
>>> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
>>> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
>>> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
>>> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
>>> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
>>> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
>>> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
>>> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
>>> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
>> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
>> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
>> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
>> carry on with for years?
>>
>>> Real
>>> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
>>> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
>>> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
>>> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
>>> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
>> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
>> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
>> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
>> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.
>
> How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone?

How about that thing Karen keeps saying, pretending victimhood after her
years of abuse? How about her chronic denials that she's even Karen? How
about her support of bestiality, pedophilia, etc., while claiming to be
Christian? How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
son, whom she abandoned while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
about how they should live theirs? How about the harm she's brought to
her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?

> Is your
> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?

It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.

On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, chico > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
> >> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
>
> >>> .... Timothy .... wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
> >>>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
> >>>> meant to be easy, does it?
> >>> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
> >>> especially when real damage has been done in the real world
> >> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
> >> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
> >> him and his family?
>
> >>> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
> >>> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
> >>> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
> >>> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
> >>> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
> >>> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
> >>> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
> >>> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
> >>> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
> >>> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
> >> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
> >> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
> >> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
> >> carry on with for years?
>
> >>> Real
> >>> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
> >>> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
> >>> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
> >>> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
> >>> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
> >> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
> >> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
> >> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
> >> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.
>
> > How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone?
>
> How about that thing Karen keeps saying, pretending victimhood after her
> years of abuse?

Not sure what you're referring to here.

> How about her chronic denials that she's even Karen?

What of it?

> How
> about her support of bestiality, pedophilia, etc., while claiming to be
> Christian?

What of it? Who says her views are incompatible with Christianity?

> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> son,

It's not a crime not to like your son.

> whom she abandoned

At what age?

> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> about how they should live theirs?

Never noticed her doing that.

> How about the harm she's brought to
> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>

Don't know anything about that. It's inevitable that different people
will have different views about the direction the church should take.
By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
"harmful"?

> > Is your
> > behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>
> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.

That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rupert wrote:

> On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, chico > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
>>>>> .... Timothy .... wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
>>>>>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
>>>>>> meant to be easy, does it?
>>>>> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
>>>>> especially when real damage has been done in the real world
>>>> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
>>>> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
>>>> him and his family?
>>>>> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
>>>>> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
>>>>> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
>>>>> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
>>>>> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
>>>>> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
>>>>> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
>>>>> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
>>>>> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
>>>>> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
>>>> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
>>>> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
>>>> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
>>>> carry on with for years?
>>>>> Real
>>>>> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
>>>>> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
>>>>> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
>>>>> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
>>>>> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
>>>> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
>>>> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
>>>> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
>>>> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.
>>> How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone?
>> How about that thing Karen keeps saying, pretending victimhood after her
>> years of abuse?
>
> Not sure what you're referring to here.

Go read the thread. She was whining about being mistreated when she's
mistreated so many others.

>> How about her chronic denials that she's even Karen?
>
> What of it?

She's a congenital liar, and not even a good one.

>> How
>> about her support of bestiality, pedophilia, etc., while claiming to be
>> Christian?
>
> What of it? Who says her views are incompatible with Christianity?

The Bible does. So does nearly all of church history until quite
recently (and mostly in her circles).

>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>> son,
>
> It's not a crime not to like your son.

She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
like her.

>> whom she abandoned
>
> At what age?

Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.

>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>> about how they should live theirs?
>
> Never noticed her doing that.

You're not attentive then.

>> How about the harm she's brought to
>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>
> Don't know anything about that.

It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.

> It's inevitable that different people
> will have different views about the direction the church should take.

Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
fellow schismatics.

> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> "harmful"?

Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.

>>> Is your
>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>
> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?

Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.

Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick. How do you reconcile your
AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
animals but okay to molest them? How many of your medications were
tested on animals, and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?

What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.

<snip>

ChapelMouse wrote:
>
> What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
> done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
> in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
> of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
> injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
> priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
> raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
> and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.
>
> <snip>
Amen! Well said Karen!
Olympiada

Olympiada wrote:

> ChapelMouse wrote:
>
>> What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
>> done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
>> in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
>> of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
>> injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
>> priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
>> raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
>> and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Amen! Well said Karen!

Is it well said, O? Is it even genuine? Did she ask Jon to forgive her
for making threats against his family? How about Derek, whom she called
a terrorist, and Belinda, whom she called many despicable names? How
about the traditionalists in her church she's ostracized AND told not to
let the church doors hit their butts? While you're at it, ask her why
she refuses to even acknowledge my apology from a few weeks ago.
Sincerity really doesn't suit her, which is just as well because she
isn't very sincere.

chico wrote:
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> ChapelMouse wrote:
>>
>>> What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
>>> done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
>>> in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
>>> of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
>>> injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
>>> priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
>>> raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
>>> and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>> Amen! Well said Karen!
>
> Is it well said, O? Is it even genuine? Did she ask Jon to forgive her
> for making threats against his family? How about Derek, whom she called
> a terrorist, and Belinda, whom she called many despicable names? How
> about the traditionalists in her church she's ostracized AND told not to
> let the church doors hit their butts? While you're at it, ask her why
> she refuses to even acknowledge my apology from a few weeks ago.
> Sincerity really doesn't suit her, which is just as well because she
> isn't very sincere.
I am not the judge, chico. I felt her apology was sincere. The question
is how did things get to that point of making threats? Now, I have my
own little herd of Internet stalkers who have made threats against me,
so I know how it goes. And I have been accused of making threats against
others. I think this is most shameful behavior for a woman but if you
read about Internet stalkers, many of them tend to be women:
erotomaniacs. Its a rather sickening phenomenon. I hope my editor reads
that. I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
way it did. I recommend a book for Karen: The Dark Side of the Internet
by Paul Bocij. I was really stupid when I came on the Internet. Now I
know better. And I think it is good to write in one's name, for
accountability purposes. I don't agree with this whole screen name
thing. That's called a fantasy life and a fantasy life is deadly for the
spiritual life. I just want honesty and sincerity in my life, and piety,
and devout Christians, no games.
Olympiada

Olympiada wrote:

> chico wrote:
>> Olympiada wrote:
>>
>>> ChapelMouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
>>>> done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
>>>> in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
>>>> of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
>>>> injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
>>>> priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
>>>> raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
>>>> and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>> Amen! Well said Karen!
>>
>> Is it well said, O? Is it even genuine? Did she ask Jon to forgive her
>> for making threats against his family? How about Derek, whom she called
>> a terrorist, and Belinda, whom she called many despicable names? How
>> about the traditionalists in her church she's ostracized AND told not to
>> let the church doors hit their butts? While you're at it, ask her why
>> she refuses to even acknowledge my apology from a few weeks ago.
>> Sincerity really doesn't suit her, which is just as well because she
>> isn't very sincere.
>
> I am not the judge, chico. I felt her apology was sincere. The question
> is how did things get to that point of making threats?

I can assure you the stuff about D&B was entirely out of the blue. I can
give you the links. Someone posting to aaev/tpa said they (D&B) were
going to spend their anniversary at his hotel. Despite some
disagreements I've had with D, I wished him and B a happy anniversary.
Karen chimed in about what a slut B was, etc. Then when people told her
she was out of order, she started whining about her own anniversary --
she's totally self-absorbed like that.

The threats against J were similarly out of left field. She said she and
her partner had friends in his area who were watching him and under
orders to take him and his family out if anything happened to her. It
was kind of funny because she was unhinged and acting like Austin Powers
or something.

All I've ever done to her is ask her questions about why she supports
NAMBLA, bestiality, why she wants her grandson to be *** like her, etc.
I've never caused her any grief (especially beyond usenet).

> Now, I have my
> own little herd of Internet stalkers who have made threats against me,
> so I know how it goes.

They're not very bright, and I told you they were chicken(bleeps). Their
idea of usenet theater is (I hate to steal analogies from
callers/writers to the Jim Rome Show like this) like a special ed talent
show. Only that's an insult to genuinely retarded people.

> And I have been accused of making threats against
> others. I think this is most shameful behavior for a woman but if you
> read about Internet stalkers, many of them tend to be women:
> erotomaniacs.

Uh oh, will you stalk me?

> Its a rather sickening phenomenon.

Uh huh, I know.

> I hope my editor reads
> that. I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
> way it did.

What happened?

> I recommend a book for Karen: The Dark Side of the Internet
> by Paul Bocij.

Recommend that modesty book you like instead. She needs some of that.
Actually, she needed a LOT of that when she was your age.

> I was really stupid when I came on the Internet. Now I
> know better. And I think it is good to write in one's name, for
> accountability purposes. I don't agree with this whole screen name
> thing. That's called a fantasy life and a fantasy life is deadly for the
> spiritual life.

I don't think it's inherently "fantasy" to use a pseudonym online or
elsewhere.

> I just want honesty and sincerity in my life, and piety,
> and devout Christians, no games.

That's not asking for too much. Hope ya find it.

Olympiada wrote:

> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
> way it did.

....? What do you mean?

--
~coyote

chico wrote:
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> chico wrote:
>>> Olympiada wrote:
>>>
>>>> ChapelMouse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
>>>>> done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
>>>>> in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
>>>>> of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
>>>>> injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
>>>>> priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
>>>>> raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
>>>>> and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> Amen! Well said Karen!
>>> Is it well said, O? Is it even genuine? Did she ask Jon to forgive her
>>> for making threats against his family? How about Derek, whom she called
>>> a terrorist, and Belinda, whom she called many despicable names? How
>>> about the traditionalists in her church she's ostracized AND told not to
>>> let the church doors hit their butts? While you're at it, ask her why
>>> she refuses to even acknowledge my apology from a few weeks ago.
>>> Sincerity really doesn't suit her, which is just as well because she
>>> isn't very sincere.
>> I am not the judge, chico. I felt her apology was sincere. The question
>> is how did things get to that point of making threats?
>
> I can assure you the stuff about D&B was entirely out of the blue. I can
> give you the links. Someone posting to aaev/tpa said they (D&B) were
> going to spend their anniversary at his hotel. Despite some
> disagreements I've had with D, I wished him and B a happy anniversary.
> Karen chimed in about what a slut B was, etc. Then when people told her
> she was out of order, she started whining about her own anniversary --
> she's totally self-absorbed like that.
>
> The threats against J were similarly out of left field. She said she and
> her partner had friends in his area who were watching him and under
> orders to take him and his family out if anything happened to her. It
> was kind of funny because she was unhinged and acting like Austin Powers
> or something.
>
> All I've ever done to her is ask her questions about why she supports
> NAMBLA, bestiality, why she wants her grandson to be *** like her, etc.
> I've never caused her any grief (especially beyond usenet).
>
I don't care about that.
>> Now, I have my
>> own little herd of Internet stalkers who have made threats against me,
>> so I know how it goes.
>
> They're not very bright, and I told you they were chicken(bleeps). Their
> idea of usenet theater is (I hate to steal analogies from
> callers/writers to the Jim Rome Show like this) like a special ed talent
> show. Only that's an insult to genuinely retarded people.
>
They're not? Show me their stupidity then.
>> And I have been accused of making threats against
>> others. I think this is most shameful behavior for a woman but if you
>> read about Internet stalkers, many of them tend to be women:
>> erotomaniacs.
>
> Uh oh, will you stalk me?
>
No.
>> Its a rather sickening phenomenon.
>
> Uh huh, I know.
>
>> I hope my editor reads
>> that. I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>> way it did.
>
> What happened?
>
Take a look at the site. The whole site is making fun of my religion,
the fact I am dealing with clinical depression, and my sexuality. The
editor is ridiculing me.
>> I recommend a book for Karen: The Dark Side of the Internet
>> by Paul Bocij.
>
> Recommend that modesty book you like instead. She needs some of that.
> Actually, she needed a LOT of that when she was your age.
>
I don't want to recommend that.
>> I was really stupid when I came on the Internet. Now I
>> know better. And I think it is good to write in one's name, for
>> accountability purposes. I don't agree with this whole screen name
>> thing. That's called a fantasy life and a fantasy life is deadly for the
>> spiritual life.
>
> I don't think it's inherently "fantasy" to use a pseudonym online or
> elsewhere.
>
Well for me it is, I can't afford to have a fantasy life, a life that is
going to force me to go to confession over it. I can't live a dishonest
life, a double life.
Olympiada

coyote wrote:
> Olympiada wrote:
>
>> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the way
>> it did.
>
> ...? What do you mean?
>
Take a look at the site. Take a look at what he sees as outlandish. I
would posit he is trying to edit my soul, my character, my psyche, my
mind. He is showing me all the things he does not love in me, does not
care for, does not understand, does not respect, will not devote himself
to. He is criticizing my very being with that website. So the last quote
from this group states that my church finds my sadomasochistic nature
acceptable. Well it doesn't, that's the point he is trying to make. So
in a way he is benefiting me, I think he is trying to get me to agree
with him that the things I am saying are outlandish. I was told that
website was paid for up through 2008, so I don't think we are done yet.
I just made an agreement with someone else somewhere else to move this
to the group devoted to kink. I am going to have to start reading that
group as uncomfortable as it makes me. I have finally accepted the fact
I am not going to have another "normal" relationship and I got praised
for that. So be it.
Olympiada

Olympiada wrote:
> coyote wrote:
>> Olympiada wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>>> way it did.
>>
>> ...? What do you mean?
>>
> Take a look at the site. Take a look at what he sees as outlandish. I
> would posit he is trying to edit my soul, my character, my psyche, my
> mind. He is showing me all the things he does not love in me, does not
> care for, does not understand, does not respect, will not devote himself
> to. He is criticizing my very being with that website. So the last quote
> from this group states that my church finds my sadomasochistic nature
> acceptable. Well it doesn't, that's the point he is trying to make. So
> in a way he is benefiting me,

So you are saying he put his opinions in your writing?

> I think he is trying to get me to agree
> with him that the things I am saying are outlandish. I was told that
> website was paid for up through 2008, so I don't think we are done yet.
> I just made an agreement with someone else somewhere else to move this
> to the group devoted to kink. I am going to have to start reading that
> group as uncomfortable as it makes me.

Or how uncomfortable it makes anyone else?

> I have finally accepted the fact
> I am not going to have another "normal" relationship and I got praised
> for that. So be it.

You really do go wherever people push you, dont you. Thats sad, and
disturbing.

--
~coyote

On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, chico > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, chico > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
> >>>> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
> >>>>> .... Timothy .... wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
> >>>>>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
> >>>>>> meant to be easy, does it?
> >>>>> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
> >>>>> especially when real damage has been done in the real world
> >>>> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
> >>>> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
> >>>> him and his family?
> >>>>> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
> >>>>> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
> >>>>> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
> >>>>> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
> >>>>> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
> >>>>> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
> >>>>> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
> >>>>> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
> >>>>> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
> >>>>> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
> >>>> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
> >>>> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
> >>>> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
> >>>> carry on with for years?
> >>>>> Real
> >>>>> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
> >>>>> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
> >>>>> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
> >>>>> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
> >>>>> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
> >>>> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
> >>>> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
> >>>> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
> >>>> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.
> >>> How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone?
> >> How about that thing Karen keeps saying, pretending victimhood after her
> >> years of abuse?
>
> > Not sure what you're referring to here.
>
> Go read the thread. She was whining about being mistreated when she's
> mistreated so many others.
>
> >> How about her chronic denials that she's even Karen?
>
> > What of it?
>
> She's a congenital liar, and not even a good one.
>
> >> How
> >> about her support of bestiality, pedophilia, etc., while claiming to be
> >> Christian?
>
> > What of it? Who says her views are incompatible with Christianity?
>
> The Bible does.

Well, yes, there are prohibitions on bestiality in Leviticus, but
there are also prohibitions on male homosexuality. Presumably you
would go along with those as well, but quite a lot of people today who
call themselves Christians wouldn't. Leviticus says a hell of a lot of
things - it says that if a man has a nocturnal emission or a woman
menstruates then he or she has to be held unclean for seven days. Most
Christians agree that not all of the Mosaic law applies to modern
Christians - there's no need to get circumcised, for example.

> So does nearly all of church history until quite
> recently (and mostly in her circles).
>

Well, the church held that it was okay to torture heretics for quite a
while. What's your point?

> >> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> >> son,
>
> > It's not a crime not to like your son.
>
> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
> like her.
>

Okay, so Christ said to hate your brother is to hate God, and now you
start talking about her *disliking* someone. You're going to seriously
pretend you don't dislike anyone? You might dislike someone if they
said they thought there was something morally wrong with your sex-
life.

> >> whom she abandoned
>
> > At what age?
>
> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>
> >> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> >> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> >> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> >> about how they should live theirs?
>
> > Never noticed her doing that.
>
> You're not attentive then.
>

I don't think so. You antis often take it upon yourself to tell other
people how they should be living their life, but I've never noticed
the ARAs doing it. Having a discussion about ethics is not the same as
telling other people how they should be living their life.

> >> How about the harm she's brought to
> >> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> >> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> >> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> >> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>
> > Don't know anything about that.
>
> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>

It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.

> > It's inevitable that different people
> > will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>
> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
> fellow schismatics.
>
> > By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> > "harmful"?
>
> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>

Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.

> >>> Is your
> >>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>
> > That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>
> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>

I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground. I'm
suggesting it might be more profitable for you, instead of listing the
faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
your pal Jonathan Ball), to reflect that you're the only person you
can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
meeting the standards you would like to meet. There's nothing wrong
with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
about casting the first stone.

> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.

See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
me like that? Not exactly Christian.

> How do you reconcile your
> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> animals but okay to molest them?

Raising animals for food harms them. Having sex with them when that is
what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.

> How many of your medications were
> tested on animals,

One. I only take one medication.

> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?

I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
medication in the near future.

coyote wrote:
> Olympiada wrote:
>> coyote wrote:
>>> Olympiada wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>>>> way it did.
>>>
>>> ...? What do you mean?
>>>
>> Take a look at the site. Take a look at what he sees as outlandish. I
>> would posit he is trying to edit my soul, my character, my psyche, my
>> mind. He is showing me all the things he does not love in me, does not
>> care for, does not understand, does not respect, will not devote
>> himself to. He is criticizing my very being with that website. So the
>> last quote from this group states that my church finds my
>> sadomasochistic nature acceptable. Well it doesn't, that's the point
>> he is trying to make. So in a way he is benefiting me,
>
> So you are saying he put his opinions in your writing?
>
Yes.
>> I think he is trying to get me to agree with him that the things I am
>> saying are outlandish. I was told that website was paid for up through
>> 2008, so I don't think we are done yet. I just made an agreement with
>> someone else somewhere else to move this to the group devoted to kink.
>> I am going to have to start reading that group as uncomfortable as it
>> makes me.
>
> Or how uncomfortable it makes anyone else?
>
I have an usher now. You will see. I am following someone else's lead
back into that group. You assume I am going in there unescorted. I got a
reward for my four days of rationality elsewhere and we are moving that
discussion of kink out of that group and back into the group it belongs.
>> I have finally accepted the fact I am not going to have another
>> "normal" relationship and I got praised for that. So be it.
>
> You really do go wherever people push you, dont you. Thats sad, and
> disturbing.
>
That was my thought that someone supported. Why are you so critical of
me? I am VERY submissive. This is true. But I also know myself. This is
not an appropriate NG for this conversation. This NG is not about kink,
its about Eastern Orthodoxy.
Olympiada

Olympiada wrote:
> coyote wrote:
>> Olympiada wrote:
>>> coyote wrote:
>>>> Olympiada wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>>>>> way it did.
>>>>
>>>> ...? What do you mean?
>>>>
>>> Take a look at the site. Take a look at what he sees as outlandish.
>>> I would posit he is trying to edit my soul, my character, my psyche,
>>> my mind. He is showing me all the things he does not love in me, does
>>> not care for, does not understand, does not respect, will not devote
>>> himself to. He is criticizing my very being with that website. So the
>>> last quote from this group states that my church finds my
>>> sadomasochistic nature acceptable. Well it doesn't, that's the point
>>> he is trying to make. So in a way he is benefiting me,
>>
>> So you are saying he put his opinions in your writing?
>>
> Yes.

Interesting. All I see are quotes of your posts.


>>> I think he is trying to get me to agree with him that the things I am
>>> saying are outlandish. I was told that website was paid for up
>>> through 2008, so I don't think we are done yet. I just made an
>>> agreement with someone else somewhere else to move this to the group
>>> devoted to kink. I am going to have to start reading that group as
>>> uncomfortable as it makes me.
>>
>> Or how uncomfortable it makes anyone else?
>>
> I have an usher now. You will see. I am following someone else's lead
> back into that group. You assume I am going in there unescorted.


It never occurred to me to wonder. Most people I know do not require an
escort. What is this escort going to do for you?


> I got a
> reward for my four days of rationality elsewhere and we are moving that
> discussion of kink out of that group and back into the group it belongs.

Considering you brought it up here in the first place, I think that is
probably a wise move.

>>> I have finally accepted the fact I am not going to have another
>>> "normal" relationship and I got praised for that. So be it.
>>
>> You really do go wherever people push you, dont you. Thats sad, and
>> disturbing.
>>
> That was my thought that someone supported. Why are you so critical of
> me?

Its not so much a criticism as a despairing observation, because you
have shown yourself to be extremely easy to influence, and it is, in my
opinion, dangerous to you. I try, often, to make you think for yourself
rather than accept other people's opinions, but I rarely seem to succeed.

> I am VERY submissive.

That is only useful in a D/s relationship. A person, especially a woman,
who submits to whoever comes along, even anonymous emailers and people
frogging Tikhon, is a danger to herself.

> This is true. But I also know myself.

Ive asked you repeatedly for your own thoughts on things, and you always
tell other people's instead. How can you know yourself if you dont think
for yourself?


--
~coyote

Olympiada wrote:
> chico wrote:
>> Olympiada wrote:
>>
>>> chico wrote:
>>>> Olympiada wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ChapelMouse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I will say is that, yes, I have made mistakes in my life, and
>>>>>> done things I would not repeat if I had the chance to go back
>>>>>> in time. But I don't. I have committed sins, and I ask forgiveness
>>>>>> of any I have injured in the past, as I forgive those who have
>>>>>> injured me in the past. I have confessed to God and to my
>>>>>> priest, and been absolved, and there is no purpose served by
>>>>>> raking up old things from decades ago. I have faith in God
>>>>>> and in His mercy, and no hatred in my heart toward anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Amen! Well said Karen!
>>>> Is it well said, O? Is it even genuine? Did she ask Jon to forgive her
>>>> for making threats against his family? How about Derek, whom she called
>>>> a terrorist, and Belinda, whom she called many despicable names? How
>>>> about the traditionalists in her church she's ostracized AND told
>>>> not to
>>>> let the church doors hit their butts? While you're at it, ask her why
>>>> she refuses to even acknowledge my apology from a few weeks ago.
>>>> Sincerity really doesn't suit her, which is just as well because she
>>>> isn't very sincere.
>>> I am not the judge, chico. I felt her apology was sincere. The question
>>> is how did things get to that point of making threats?
>>
>> I can assure you the stuff about D&B was entirely out of the blue. I can
>> give you the links. Someone posting to aaev/tpa said they (D&B) were
>> going to spend their anniversary at his hotel. Despite some
>> disagreements I've had with D, I wished him and B a happy anniversary.
>> Karen chimed in about what a slut B was, etc. Then when people told her
>> she was out of order, she started whining about her own anniversary --
>> she's totally self-absorbed like that.
>>
>> The threats against J were similarly out of left field. She said she and
>> her partner had friends in his area who were watching him and under
>> orders to take him and his family out if anything happened to her. It
>> was kind of funny because she was unhinged and acting like Austin Powers
>> or something.
>>
>> All I've ever done to her is ask her questions about why she supports
>> NAMBLA, bestiality, why she wants her grandson to be *** like her, etc.
>> I've never caused her any grief (especially beyond usenet).
>>
> I don't care about that.
>>> Now, I have my
>>> own little herd of Internet stalkers who have made threats against me,
>>> so I know how it goes.
>>
>> They're not very bright, and I told you they were chicken(bleeps). Their
>> idea of usenet theater is (I hate to steal analogies from
>> callers/writers to the Jim Rome Show like this) like a special ed talent
>> show. Only that's an insult to genuinely retarded people.
>>
> They're not? Show me their stupidity then.

It's on full display in all their posts. They're just bullying you.

>>> And I have been accused of making threats against
>>> others. I think this is most shameful behavior for a woman but if you
>>> read about Internet stalkers, many of them tend to be women:
>>> erotomaniacs.
>>
>> Uh oh, will you stalk me?
>>
> No.

Why not?

>>> Its a rather sickening phenomenon.
>>
>> Uh huh, I know.
>>
>>> I hope my editor reads
>>> that. I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>>> way it did.
>>
>> What happened?
>>
> Take a look at the site. The whole site is making fun of my religion,
> the fact I am dealing with clinical depression, and my sexuality. The
> editor is ridiculing me.

I don't know what site you're writing about. Is your editor being
lighthearted or mean-spirited about it?

>>> I recommend a book for Karen: The Dark Side of the Internet
>>> by Paul Bocij.
>>
>> Recommend that modesty book you like instead. She needs some of that.
>> Actually, she needed a LOT of that when she was your age.
>>
> I don't want to recommend that.

She needs it.

>>> I was really stupid when I came on the Internet. Now I
>>> know better. And I think it is good to write in one's name, for
>>> accountability purposes. I don't agree with this whole screen name
>>> thing. That's called a fantasy life and a fantasy life is deadly for the
>>> spiritual life.
>>
>> I don't think it's inherently "fantasy" to use a pseudonym online or
>> elsewhere.
>
> Well for me it is, I can't afford to have a fantasy life, a life that is
> going to force me to go to confession over it. I can't live a dishonest
> life, a double life.

Was Mary Anne Evans/George Eliot leading a double life? Did she have to
go to confession for writing novels under a pseudonym?

Olympiada wrote:
> coyote wrote:
>> Olympiada wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>>> way it did.
>>
>> ...? What do you mean?
>>
> Take a look at the site. Take a look at what he sees as outlandish. I
> would posit he is trying to edit my soul, my character, my psyche, my
> mind. He is showing me all the things he does not love in me, does not
> care for, does not understand, does not respect, will not devote himself
> to. He is criticizing my very being with that website. So the last quote
> from this group states that my church finds my sadomasochistic nature
> acceptable. Well it doesn't, that's the point he is trying to make. So
> in a way he is benefiting me, I think he is trying to get me to agree
> with him that the things I am saying are outlandish.

A lot of it is. It's kind of confusing that you'd hear stuff at church
about loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as you'd have
them do unto you, that husbands should love their wives as Christ loves
the church, and then you go around looking for someone to be your
master, to boss and push you around, to at least mentally (sexually,
verbally?) abuse you, etc. Ugh. You can do better than that. Much better
than that.

> I was told that
> website was paid for up through 2008, so I don't think we are done yet.
> I just made an agreement with someone else somewhere else to move this
> to the group devoted to kink. I am going to have to start reading that
> group as uncomfortable as it makes me. I have finally accepted the fact
> I am not going to have another "normal" relationship and I got praised
> for that. So be it.

Why do you need to go to yet another group, much less on someone else's
initiative, if it's going to be a bad experience for you? And why are
you giving in to only having abnormal, abusive, bad, un-Christian (or at
least very incompatible with Christianity) relationships?

Olympiada wrote:
> coyote wrote:
>> Olympiada wrote:
>>> coyote wrote:
>>>> Olympiada wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
>>>>> way it did.
>>>>
>>>> ...? What do you mean?
>>>>
>>> Take a look at the site. Take a look at what he sees as outlandish.
>>> I would posit he is trying to edit my soul, my character, my psyche,
>>> my mind. He is showing me all the things he does not love in me, does
>>> not care for, does not understand, does not respect, will not devote
>>> himself to. He is criticizing my very being with that website. So the
>>> last quote from this group states that my church finds my
>>> sadomasochistic nature acceptable. Well it doesn't, that's the point
>>> he is trying to make. So in a way he is benefiting me,
>>
>> So you are saying he put his opinions in your writing?
>>
> Yes.
>>> I think he is trying to get me to agree with him that the things I am
>>> saying are outlandish. I was told that website was paid for up
>>> through 2008, so I don't think we are done yet. I just made an
>>> agreement with someone else somewhere else to move this to the group
>>> devoted to kink. I am going to have to start reading that group as
>>> uncomfortable as it makes me.
>>
>> Or how uncomfortable it makes anyone else?
>>
> I have an usher now. You will see. I am following someone else's lead
> back into that group. You assume I am going in there unescorted. I got a
> reward for my four days of rationality elsewhere and we are moving that
> discussion of kink out of that group and back into the group it belongs.
>>> I have finally accepted the fact I am not going to have another
>>> "normal" relationship and I got praised for that. So be it.
>>
>> You really do go wherever people push you, dont you. Thats sad, and
>> disturbing.
>>
> That was my thought that someone supported. Why are you so critical of
> me? I am VERY submissive. This is true.

You were bossy in wanting an apology from me even after *you* called
*me* swine.

> But I also know myself. This is
> not an appropriate NG for this conversation. This NG is not about kink,
> its about Eastern Orthodoxy.
> Olympiada

Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, chico > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>>>> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
>>>>>>> .... Timothy .... wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
>>>>>>>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
>>>>>>>> meant to be easy, does it?
>>>>>>> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
>>>>>>> especially when real damage has been done in the real world
>>>>>> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
>>>>>> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
>>>>>> him and his family?
>>>>>>> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
>>>>>>> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
>>>>>>> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
>>>>>>> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
>>>>>>> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
>>>>>>> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
>>>>>>> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
>>>>>>> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
>>>>>>> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
>>>>>>> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
>>>>>> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
>>>>>> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
>>>>>> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
>>>>>> carry on with for years?
>>>>>>> Real
>>>>>>> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
>>>>>>> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
>>>>>>> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
>>>>>>> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
>>>>>>> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
>>>>>> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
>>>>>> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
>>>>>> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
>>>>>> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.
>>>>> How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone?
>>>> How about that thing Karen keeps saying, pretending victimhood after her
>>>> years of abuse?
>>> Not sure what you're referring to here.
>> Go read the thread. She was whining about being mistreated when she's
>> mistreated so many others.
>>
>>>> How about her chronic denials that she's even Karen?
>>> What of it?
>> She's a congenital liar, and not even a good one.
>>
>>>> How
>>>> about her support of bestiality, pedophilia, etc., while claiming to be
>>>> Christian?
>>> What of it? Who says her views are incompatible with Christianity?
>> The Bible does.
>
> Well, yes

This isn't limited to Leviticus, dummy. The NT contains the same
prohibitions against various sexual practices. Paul covers with it
extensively in various epistles. Jude also uses the word porneia --
which encompasses homosexuality, incest, and bestiality -- in his epistle.

>> So does nearly all of church history until quite
>> recently (and mostly in her circles).
>
> Well, the church held that it was okay to torture heretics

That the church wrongly acted outside its code or scripture in the past
isn't the issue; that people are doing that again NOW -- by ignoring
their teachings and adopting a libertine ethic of sexuality (including
people like Karen who think it's unconscionable to eat animals in nearly
all normal instances but entirely permissible, even laudable, for people
to have sex with animals) -- is the issue. Two rights don't make a
wrong, Rupie.

>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>>>> son,
>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
>> like her.
>
> Okay

She loathes her son. He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
will be *** like her. It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
isn't Christian. She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
discussion.

>>>> whom she abandoned
>>> At what age?
>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>>
>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>>>> about how they should live theirs?
>>> Never noticed her doing that.
>> You're not attentive then.
>
> I don't think

I've noticed.

>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>>> Don't know anything about that.
>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>
> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.

They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
in her church -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
-- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
are real, and so is their confusion and pain.

>>> It's inevitable that different people
>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
>> fellow schismatics.
>>
>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
>>> "harmful"?
>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>
> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.

Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
or reject it. Karen just wants it both ways.

>>>>> Is your
>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>
> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.

Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.

> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,

Did I ask for your benighted opinion?

> instead of listing the
> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
> your pal Jonathan Ball),

Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.

> to reflect that you're the only person you
> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
> meeting the standards you would like to meet.

I meet my standards, why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
yours? **** off.

> There's nothing wrong
> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
> about casting the first stone.

It was relevant.

>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>
> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
> me like that? Not exactly Christian.

I told you what you did to warrant that.

>> How do you reconcile your
>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>> animals but okay to molest them?
>
> Raising animals for food harms them.

No, it doesn't.

> Having sex with them when that is
> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.

How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?

>> How many of your medications were
>> tested on animals,
>
> One. I only take one medication.

It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."

>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>
> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> medication in the near future.

So you admit you're a hypocrite.

Chico, please stop putting words in my mouth. You
do not describe my views correctly.

ChapelMouse wrote:

> Chico, please stop putting words in my mouth.

I've not put any in your mouth.

> You do not describe my views correctly.

You're free to correct what I've written. I can establish the points
I've made and refresh your memory by giving links to your posts.

Sootikin blabbered:
>
> Chico, please stop putting words in my mouth. You
> do not describe my views correctly.

Chico describes your views absolutely correctly.

On Apr 29, 3:01 pm, Olympiada > wrote:

I hope my editor reads
> that. I don't like how he editorialized my writing to make it end up the
> way it did.

Are you saying that he misquoted you? Because there are enough people
here willing to search through all your posts to find where you
actually said most of the crazy stuff this person has quoted to make
you think twice about accusing someone of that.

Also, editing is not the same as editorializing. I know, that latter
has more syllables, and so you think it might makes you sound smarter,
but if you used the word incorrectly it works the opposite.

Lynn

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> Chico, please stop putting words in my mouth. You
>> do not describe my views correctly.

> Chico describes your views absolutely correctly.

It should be clear why trying to discuss anything
with people like Chico and Rudy is pointless,
an an occasion for sin.

I know what my views are, and Chico does not
describe them correctly.

Sootikin aka Karen Winter lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>Sootikin lied
>>> Chico, please stop putting words in my mouth. You
>>> do not describe my views correctly.
>
>> Chico describes your views absolutely correctly.

> I know what my views are,

So does Chico. So do I.


> and Chico does not describe them correctly.

Chico does indeed describe your views correctly, Karen.

The thing is that so many things have changed in my life
since the days of those old posts -- all of them for the
good. My life is filled with joy in so many ways, and I
wish I could post about it, but I know I don't dare.
God has blessed me, and my life is good and happy, and
I am grateful to Him.

On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 11:26 pm, chico > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 7:24 pm, chico > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 28, 11:18 pm, chico > wrote:
> >>>>>> St Karen Winter,smug hypocrite, wrote:
> >>>>>>> .... Timothy .... wrote:
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>> ***It's hard to be totally "christian".....
> >>>>>>>> It is indeed. "Take up your cross....". Doesn't sound like it's
> >>>>>>>> meant to be easy, does it?
> >>>>>>> No -- and it's not usually a complete success for any of us,
> >>>>>>> especially when real damage has been done in the real world
> >>>>>> Like when you threatened another user at AAEV/TPA by stating that some
> >>>>>> of your and Sylvia's malevolent anarchist friends were keeping an eye on
> >>>>>> him and his family?
> >>>>>>> outside of Usenet. Forgiveness is achieved at a real price,
> >>>>>>> and especially when one's forgiveness is not accepted as
> >>>>>>> genuine, even when it is. The person remains an "occasion for
> >>>>>>> sin" -- an occasion for anger and self-justification.
> >>>>>>> At some point, the only answer for one's own peace of mind
> >>>>>>> and spiritual state is to walk away completely -- just
> >>>>>>> ignore the person and avoid contact. When people can meet
> >>>>>>> in the real world, some sort of reconciliation can often be
> >>>>>>> achieved, but when people remain no more than letters on a
> >>>>>>> screen, that is very difficult, if not impossible.
> >>>>>> Does this apply to Belinda and Derek, both of whom you called many vile
> >>>>>> names on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary? How about your
> >>>>>> long-running feud with the Bishops that you seemed all too happy to
> >>>>>> carry on with for years?
> >>>>>>> Real
> >>>>>>> people are so much more complex and multi-dimensional --
> >>>>>>> one can usually find points of contact and mutual interests --
> >>>>>>> if only in a good cup of coffee. But Usenet and the Internet
> >>>>>>> in general is such an impersonal and confrontational
> >>>>>>> medium, that much civility and sense of community is lost.
> >>>>>> Especially when people like YOU threaten others with physical harm the
> >>>>>> way you did a couple years ago. You have no room to prate about
> >>>>>> forgiveness given the filth you've happily dished out for years, and
> >>>>>> your unwillingness to give it to anyone who won't kiss your flabby old ass.
> >>>>> How about that thing Jesus said about the first stone?
> >>>> How about that thing Karen keeps saying, pretending victimhood after her
> >>>> years of abuse?
> >>> Not sure what you're referring to here.
> >> Go read the thread. She was whining about being mistreated when she's
> >> mistreated so many others.
>
> >>>> How about her chronic denials that she's even Karen?
> >>> What of it?
> >> She's a congenital liar, and not even a good one.
>
> >>>> How
> >>>> about her support of bestiality, pedophilia, etc., while claiming to be
> >>>> Christian?
> >>> What of it? Who says her views are incompatible with Christianity?
> >> The Bible does.
>
> > Well, yes
>
> This isn't limited to Leviticus, dummy. The NT contains the same
> prohibitions against various sexual practices. Paul covers with it
> extensively in various epistles. Jude also uses the word porneia --
> which encompasses homosexuality, incest, and bestiality -- in his epistle.
>

Fascinating. So no-one who thinks that homosexuality is morally
permissible can claim to be Christian, is that the story?

> >> So does nearly all of church history until quite
> >> recently (and mostly in her circles).
>
> > Well, the church held that it was okay to torture heretics
>
> That the church wrongly acted outside its code or scripture in the past
> isn't the issue;

It is the issue if you're claiming that the past conduct of the church
is a good guide to what's really morally appropriate.

> that people are doing that again NOW -- by ignoring
> their teachings and adopting a libertine ethic of sexuality (including
> people like Karen who think it's unconscionable to eat animals in nearly
> all normal instances but entirely permissible, even laudable, for people
> to have sex with animals) -- is the issue. Two rights don't make a
> wrong, Rupie.
>
> >>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> >>>> son,
> >>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
> >> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
> >> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
> >> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
> >> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
> >> like her.
>
> > Okay
>
> She loathes her son.

I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
myself.

> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
> will be *** like her.

Don't see a problem with that.

> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
> isn't Christian.

Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
sickening. Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour. You once told me to
go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever. Who
do you think you are to talk about other people being Christian or
not?

> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
> discussion.
>

Nonsense.

> >>>> whom she abandoned
> >>> At what age?
> >> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
> >> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>
> >>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> >>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> >>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> >>>> about how they should live theirs?
> >>> Never noticed her doing that.
> >> You're not attentive then.
>
> > I don't think
>
> I've noticed.
>
> >>>> How about the harm she's brought to
> >>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> >>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> >>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> >>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
> >>> Don't know anything about that.
> >> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>
> > It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
> > point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
> > bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
>
> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
> in her church

I really don't care. Any individual is free to try to influence an
organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes. I don't regard
that as morally wrong.

> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>

Who has she hurt?

> >>> It's inevitable that different people
> >>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
> >> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
> >> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
> >> fellow schismatics.
>
> >>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> >>> "harmful"?
> >> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>
> > Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
> > measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
>
> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.

And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
to listen.

> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
> or reject it.

Then the church can tell Karen to go away. You seem to be upset that
they've chosen not to do that.

> Karen just wants it both ways.
>
> >>>>> Is your
> >>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>
> > I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>
> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>

Having a moral high ground compared to you is not a difficult
achievement.

> > I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
>
> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>

No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.

> > instead of listing the
> > faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
> > your pal Jonathan Ball),
>
> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?

I don't know. Earlier you were talking about "vile names" and "filth",
that's Jon's usual modus operandi. Also he has recently publicly
fantasized on two occasions about committing violence against me. This
is the man whom you once said was my "better". It seems to me you're a
bit selective in your criticism of people. There is nothing wrong with
joining a church and expressing your own views about the direction the
organization should go.

> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>

Jon Ball lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
credibility.

> > to reflect that you're the only person you
> > can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
> > meeting the standards you would like to meet.
>
> I meet my standards,

Then your standards aren't very high.

> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> yours?

Because you'd be a better person if you did, and you wouldn't be such
a disgusting hypocrite for talking about what's "Christian".

> **** off.
>

No, you **** off.

> > There's nothing wrong
> > with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
> > Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
> > about casting the first stone.
>
> It was relevant.
>

No.

> >> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>
> > See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
> > me like that? Not exactly Christian.
>
> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>

No, you didn't. I did nothing to warrant any kind of hostility. You
started swearing at me because you're a contemptible low-life.

> >> How do you reconcile your
> >> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >> animals but okay to molest them?
>
> > Raising animals for food harms them.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>

Ridiculous.

> > Having sex with them when that is
> > what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>
> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>

I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire. I
have never made any comment about how often it happens that nonhuman
animals have a genuine desire for sexual contact with humans, and what
is the best way to ensure that a genuine desire exists. I have never
made it my business to write a treatise on the morality of bestiality.
I have simply said that it seems to me possible that a nonhuman animal
might sometimes have a genuine desire for sexual contact with a human
and that we might be in a position to know this, and when that happens
I don't see anything morally objectionable about initiating such
contact.

> >> How many of your medications were
> >> tested on animals,
>
> > One. I only take one medication.
>
> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>
> >> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> >> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>
> > I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> > episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> > medication in the near future.
>
> So you admit you're a hypocrite.

No.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ChapelMouse wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>> Chico, please stop putting words in my mouth. You
>>> do not describe my views correctly.
>
>> Chico describes your views absolutely correctly.
>
> It should be clear why trying to discuss anything
> with people like Chico and Rudy is pointless,
> an an occasion for sin.
>
> I know what my views are, and Chico does not
> describe them correctly.

Karen/Chapel Mouse/Glorfindel/Rat:

You have stated your views quite a number of times. They don't need
translation. You can't deny them. You haven't disavowed them. Words
have not been put in your mouth. You put your fingers to a keyboard and
typed them yourself.

Dave Heil

ChapelMouse wrote:
> The thing is that so many things have changed in my life
> since the days of those old posts -- all of them for the
> good. My life is filled with joy in so many ways, and I
> wish I could post about it, but I know I don't dare.
> God has blessed me, and my life is good and happy, and
> I am grateful to Him.


Karen, you've never disavowed any of those things you've posted. You've
called them "decades old", but some are only a few years old. Some are
newer than that. You'll pardon some of us for being skeptical of the
new you.

Dave Heil

Sootikin aka Karen Winter dissembled:

> The thing is that so many things have changed in my life
> since the days of those old posts -- all of them for the
> good.

That's lovely, Karen. Unfortunately, your beliefs haven't changed
apace. Nor has your rotten character. You haven't disavowed any of
the bullshit you wrote in those "old posts", most of which are less
than five years old.


> My life is filled with joy in so many ways, and I
> wish I could post about it, but I know I don't dare.

What? Did your grandson turn out to be queer? Did you and your
NAMBLA pervert friends win a big court victory?

Rupert, who's pro-bestiality even if it includes conditioning, wrote:

This summarizes your worldview:
> I really don't care.

But yet you continue trying to jump into the fray, trying to stake out
some kind of moral high ground, and only making an ass of yourself.

>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>
> Having a moral high ground

You're incapable of having one.

>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>
> I don't know.

Then don't drag him into the discussion, twit.

> This is the man whom you once said was my "better".

He still is.

> It seems to me you're a
> bit selective in your criticism of people.

Especially silly little ******s like you who think it's wrong for people
to eat animals but okay for people to molest them.

>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>> yours?
>
> Because you'd be a better person if you did

In your opinion -- the same one that thinks eating meat is immoral but
buggery with children and animals is acceptable.

>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Ridiculous.

You sure are.

>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>
> I don't think

Established.

> the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.

The "sincerity" and "desire" of the conditioned or the conditioner? A
conditioned response is hardly voluntary, particularly if negative
reinforcement has been used and its threat hangs over the conditioned
party. And why cut any slack to people who manipulate animals for their
own perverted pleasure? That's not what the animal chooses to do -- the
animal wants reward, not sex.

You're sicker than you think.

> I
> have never made any comment about how often it happens that nonhuman
> animals have a genuine desire for sexual contact with humans, and what
> is the best way to ensure that a genuine desire exists.

Other than confused male animals mounting menstruating women, tell me
when "genuine desire exists" on the part of animals.

> I have never
> made it my business to write a treatise on the morality of bestiality.

Why are you starting now?

> I have simply said that it seems to me possible that a nonhuman animal
> might sometimes have a genuine desire for sexual contact with a human

Conditioning notwithstanding?

> and that we might be in a position to know this, and when that happens
> I don't see anything morally objectionable about initiating such
> contact.

Pervert.

>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>> tested on animals,
>>> One. I only take one medication.
>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>>
>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>> medication in the near future.
>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>
> No.

A little honesty with yourself would do you good.

ChapelMouse wrote:

> The thing is that so many things have changed in my life
> since the days of those old posts -- all of them for the
> good.

Did the toxic waste facility behind your trailer park shut down?

> My life is filled with joy in so many ways, and I
> wish I could post about it, but I know I don't dare.

Never stopped you before.

> God has blessed me, and my life is good and happy, and
> I am grateful to Him.

Do you have more than e-mail contact with Hugh anymore?

Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:


>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>>>>>> son,
>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
>>>> like her.
>>> Okay
>> She loathes her son.
>
> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
> myself.

He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.


>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
>> will be *** like her.
>
> Don't see a problem with that.

You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
Sootikin.


>
>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
>> isn't Christian.
>
> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
> sickening.

You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.


> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.

You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
behavior. You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
usenet.


> You once told me to
> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.

More than sufficient provocation.

Did you do it? Why not?


>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
>> discussion.
>>
>
> Nonsense.

Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.

You have no standing either, rupie.


>>>>>> whom she abandoned
>>>>> At what age?

About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.


>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.

There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
what self-absorption does to a person.


>>>> You're not attentive then.
>>> I don't think
>> I've noticed.
>>
>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
>> in her church
>
> I really don't care.

You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.


> Any individual is free to try to influence an
> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.

No, that's not so.


> I don't regard that as morally wrong.

Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
as is Karen/Sootikin.


>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>>
>
> Who has she hurt?

Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.


>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
>>>> fellow schismatics.
>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
>>>>> "harmful"?
>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
>
> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
> to listen.

They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.


>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
>> or reject it.
>
> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.

St. Bede's did.


> You seem to be upset that
> they've chosen not to do that.

Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.


>
>> Karen just wants it both ways.
>>
>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>
>
> Having a moral high ground

You don't.


>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>>
>
> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.

Implicitly, she did.


>>> instead of listing the
>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>
> I don't know.

You don't know anything.


>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>>
>
> Jon Ball lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
> credibility.

You don't know anything, rupie.


>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
>> I meet my standards,
>
> Then your standards aren't very high.

Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.

>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>> yours?
>
> Because you'd be a better person if you did,

No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.


>> **** off.
>>
>
> No, you **** off.

No, *you* **** off, rupie.


>>> There's nothing wrong
>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
>>> about casting the first stone.
>> It was relevant.
>>
>
> No.

Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
going on disqualifies you from saying anything.


>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>>
>
> No, you didn't.

Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.


>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>
> Ridiculous.

Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
do that a lot.


>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>
>
> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.

The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.


>
>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>> tested on animals,
>>> One. I only take one medication.
>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."

Evasion noted, rupie.

You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
fire on students and professors.


>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>> medication in the near future.
>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>
> No.

You should, because you are one.

On May 1, 10:13 pm, chico > wrote:
> Rupert, who's pro-bestiality even if it includes conditioning, wrote:
>
> This summarizes your worldview:
>
> > I really don't care.
>
> But yet you continue trying to jump into the fray, trying to stake out
> some kind of moral high ground, and only making an ass of yourself.
>

I'm not making an ass of myself. Your previous behaviour shows that
you are not fit to converse with decent people. And yet you
pontificate about what a follower of Christ would do. It's enough to
make anyone want to throw up. You bicker at Karen about things that
happened years ago, and when someone politely suggests that you just
once take a critical look at yourself you start swearing at them. It's
pathetic. Having a moral high ground relative to you is no difficulty
at all.

> >>>>>>> Is your
> >>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
> >>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
> >> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>
> > Having a moral high ground
>
> You're incapable of having one.
>
> >> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>
> > I don't know.
>
> Then don't drag him into the discussion, twit.
>

Why not? Your initial complaints about Karen were about "vile names"
and threats of violence. He's guilty on both counts.

> > This is the man whom you once said was my "better".
>
> He still is.
>

Very amusing. So, tell me, how is it that when Karen calls people vile
names and makes threats of violence it reflects poorly on her, but
when Jon does the same he is a fine upstanding citizen?

> > It seems to me you're a
> > bit selective in your criticism of people.
>
> Especially silly little ******s like you who think it's wrong for people
> to eat animals but okay for people to molest them.
>

Your position that factory-farming is okay but mutually desired sexual
contact between nonhumans and humans isn't is a joke.

> >> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> >> yours?
>
> > Because you'd be a better person if you did
>
> In your opinion -- the same one that thinks eating meat is immoral but
> buggery with children and animals is acceptable.
>

Yep, that's right. My moral opinions are a lot better thought-out than
yours.

> >>>> How do you reconcile your
> >>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >>>> animals but okay to molest them?
> >>> Raising animals for food harms them.
> >> No, it doesn't.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> You sure are.
>
> >>> Having sex with them when that is
> >>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
> >> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> >> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> >> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> >> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> >> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>
> > I don't think
>
> Established.
>
> > the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> > conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>
> The "sincerity" and "desire" of the conditioned or the conditioner? A
> conditioned response is hardly voluntary,

Why not? Tell me what you mean by "conditioning". Do you think humans
would be able to function in modern society without conditioning?

> particularly if negative
> reinforcement has been used

Negative reinforcement for failure to be sexually compliant is not
morally permissible.

> and its threat hangs over the conditioned
> party. And why cut any slack to people who manipulate animals for their
> own perverted pleasure? That's not what the animal chooses to do -- the
> animal wants reward, not sex.
>

What the animals' motives are don't undermine the voluntary nature of
its action. I don't claim any great insight into how zoophiles
interact with animals, and I don't believe you have any either.


> You're sicker than you think.
>
> > I
> > have never made any comment about how often it happens that nonhuman
> > animals have a genuine desire for sexual contact with humans, and what
> > is the best way to ensure that a genuine desire exists.
>
> Other than confused male animals mounting menstruating women, tell me
> when "genuine desire exists" on the part of animals.
>

I'm not an expert on the matter and never claimed to be. If you're so
interested in the matter, why don't you contact the people at this
site and take up the argument with them.

http://www.zoophilia.net/

> > I have never
> > made it my business to write a treatise on the morality of bestiality.
>
> Why are you starting now?
>

I'm not. You brought up the subject and I'm answering your questions.

> > I have simply said that it seems to me possible that a nonhuman animal
> > might sometimes have a genuine desire for sexual contact with a human
>
> Conditioning notwithstanding?
>

I'm not clear on what you mean by "conditioning".

> > and that we might be in a position to know this, and when that happens
> > I don't see anything morally objectionable about initiating such
> > contact.
>
> Pervert.
>
> >>>> How many of your medications were
> >>>> tested on animals,
> >>> One. I only take one medication.
> >> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>
> >>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> >>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
> >>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> >>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> >>> medication in the near future.
> >> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>
> > No.
>
> A little honesty with yourself would do you good.

I'm extremely honest with myself, and I'm certainly not going to get
bothered because some nincompoop like you thinks I'm somehow at fault
for not exposing myself to the risk of another psychotic episode.
You've never made the slightest sacrifice for the sake of living up to
your moral principles or making the world a better place. You can't
even bring yourself to conform to the basic norms of civilized
behaviour. The idea that you are in some kind of position to criticize
me is a joke.

On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> >>>>>> son,
> >>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
> >>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
> >>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
> >>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
> >>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
> >>>> like her.
> >>> Okay
> >> She loathes her son.
>
> > I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
> > myself.
>
> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
>
> >> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
> >> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
> >> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
> >> will be *** like her.
>
> > Don't see a problem with that.
>
> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
> Sootikin.
>

What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
being ***? Why is there something wrong with having that hope?

>
>
> >> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
> >> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
> >> isn't Christian.
>
> > Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
> > sickening.
>
> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
>

The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see. He pontificates about how
Christ said to hate your brother is to hate God, when he is constantly
brimming with hatred. It's sickening.

> > Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
> > conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
>
> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
> behavior.

No, I'm afraid that's you, Jon.

> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
> usenet.
>

I'm not in the least self-absorbed. I'm far, far less apathetic about
the good of society than you are.

> > You once told me to
> > go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
>
> More than sufficient provocation.
>
> Did you do it? Why not?
>

Contemptible slimeball.

> >> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
> >> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
> >> discussion.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
>

Delusional nitwit.

> You have no standing either, rupie.
>

No, that's you, Ball.

> >>>>>> whom she abandoned
> >>>>> At what age?
>
> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
>

Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.

> >>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
> >>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
> >>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> >>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> >>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> >>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
> >>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
>
> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
> what self-absorption does to a person.
>

If you can't substantiate your point with evidence, then there's
really not much point in opening your mouth. Oh, I forgot, you like
making yourself into a clown.

> >>>> You're not attentive then.
> >>> I don't think
> >> I've noticed.
>
> >>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
> >>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> >>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> >>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> >>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
> >>>>> Don't know anything about that.
> >>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
> >>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
> >>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
> >>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
> >> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
> >> in her church
>
> > I really don't care.
>
> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
>

You're a bit confused here, Ball. I call this one a "supposed" sin
because I don't care about it - I have no interest in what Karen has
done in her church, and I don't think it reflects poorly on her.

> > Any individual is free to try to influence an
> > organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
>
> No, that's not so.
>

Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?

> > I don't regard that as morally wrong.
>
> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
> as is Karen/Sootikin.
>

The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke. You've got the
idea that you have good character, Ball? Is that what you'd have us
believe?

> >> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
> >> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
> >> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>
> > Who has she hurt?
>
> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>

Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?

> >>>>> It's inevitable that different people
> >>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
> >>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
> >>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
> >>>> fellow schismatics.
> >>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> >>>>> "harmful"?
> >>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
> >>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
> >>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
> >> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
> >> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
>
> > And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
> > organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
> > to listen.
>
> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
>

Fine.

> >> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
> >> or reject it.
>
> > Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
>
> St. Bede's did.
>

Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?

> > You seem to be upset that
> > they've chosen not to do that.
>
> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
>

You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.

>
>
> >> Karen just wants it both ways.
>
> >>>>>>> Is your
> >>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
> >>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
> >> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>
> > Having a moral high ground
>
> You don't.
>

Every minimally decent person has a moral high ground with respect to
you two.

> >>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
> >> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>
> > No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
>
> Implicitly, she did.
>

Nonsense.

> >>> instead of listing the
> >>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
> >>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
> >> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>
> > I don't know.
>
> You don't know anything.
>

No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization, Ball.

> >> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>
> > Jon Ball lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
> > credibility.
>
> You don't know anything, rupie.
>
> >>> to reflect that you're the only person you
> >>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
> >>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
> >> I meet my standards,
>
> > Then your standards aren't very high.
>
> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
>

No. You're a fool.

> >> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> >> yours?
>
> > Because you'd be a better person if you did,
>
> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
>

Er, no, Ball, I'm afraid not. You're really not competent to comment
on my moral standards.

> >> **** off.
>
> > No, you **** off.
>
> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
>
> >>> There's nothing wrong
> >>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
> >>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
> >>> about casting the first stone.
> >> It was relevant.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
>

No, it doesn't. My point about casting the first stone is a perfectly
reasonable one.

> >>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
> >>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
> >>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
> >> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>
> > No, you didn't.
>
> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
>

He didn't give any good reason. There is none. He started swearing at
me because he's a disgusting low-life like you.

> >>>> How do you reconcile your
> >>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >>>> animals but okay to molest them?
> >>> Raising animals for food harms them.
> >> No, it doesn't.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
> do that a lot.
>

Your delusions are really weird. Of course it's ridiculous. It's
utterly absurd. Even you must realize that.

> >>> Having sex with them when that is
> >>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
> >> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> >> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> >> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> >> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> >> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>
> > I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> > conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>
> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
>

You don't know anything about the matter, Jon. Either the desire
exists or it doesn't. If it does, and it's been brought about by
morally permissible means, then there's no moral problem with having
the contact. I've never made any comment about how often this happens,
I have no insight into the matter, and neither do you.

>
>
> >>>> How many of your medications were
> >>>> tested on animals,
> >>> One. I only take one medication.
> >> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>
> Evasion noted, rupie.
>

No evasion, I just declined to comment. Neither you nor chico have any
insight into what medications would be available if we had developed
and validated non-animal means of testing drugs a few decades ago. So
the point that I benefit from the situation being the way it is as
opposed to how it would be if this were the case is not established.

> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
> fire on students and professors.
>

We were talking about medications I take regularly. I haven't taken
any prescription drugs apart from Solian in the last year. Your
ignorance and stupidity about mental illness beggars belief. I have
never been and never will be any kind of danger to the public. You, on
the other hand, clearly are a danger to society.

> >>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> >>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
> >>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> >>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> >>> medication in the near future.
> >> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>
> > No.
>
> You should, because you are one.

No. And the idea that you somehow have the right to criticize me
because I don't expose myself to the risk of having another psychotic
illness is too ridiculous for words. We discussed this before, Jon,
and I asked you what you would do in relevantly similar circumstances,
and you completely evaded the question, claiming it was irrelevant.
Well, if you think you have the right to morally criticize others, it
is relevant. You never answered the question and you never will,
because you are too much of a coward. We know that. So you really
don't have a leg to stand on.

Rupert wrote:
> On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
>>>>>>>> son,
>>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
>>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
>>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
>>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
>>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
>>>>>> like her.
>>>>> Okay
>>>> She loathes her son.
>>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
>>> myself.
>> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
>> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
>> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
>>
>>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
>>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
>>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
>>>> will be *** like her.
>>> Don't see a problem with that.
>> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
>> Sootikin.
>>
>
> What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
> being ***?

There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
her. She wants it because it would make her son
unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
that purely because it would make someone else miserable.


> Why is there something wrong with having that hope?

It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.

But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.

Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.


>>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
>>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
>>>> isn't Christian.
>>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
>>> sickening.
>> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
>>
>
> The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.

ipse dixit


>>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
>>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
>> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
>> behavior.
>
> No, I'm afraid that's you

No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.


>> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
>> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
>> usenet.
>>
>
> I'm not in the least self-absorbed.

You are entirely self absorbed.


>>> You once told me to
>>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
>> More than sufficient provocation.
>>
>> Did you do it? Why not?
>>
>
> Contemptible slimeball.

Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.


>>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
>>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
>>>> discussion.
>>> Nonsense.
>> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> You have no standing either, rupie.
>>
>
> No, that's you,

No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.


>>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
>>>>>>> At what age?
>> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
>> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
>> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
>>
>
> Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
> essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.

She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.


>>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
>>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
>>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
>>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
>>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
>>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
>>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
>> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
>> what self-absorption does to a person.
>>
>
> If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,

Done, many times over.


>>>>>> You're not attentive then.
>>>>> I don't think
>>>> I've noticed.
>>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
>>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
>>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
>>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
>>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
>>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
>>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
>>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
>>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
>>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
>>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
>>>> in her church
>>> I really don't care.
>> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
>> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
>>
>
> You're a bit confused here,

No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.


>>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
>>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
>> No, that's not so.
>>
>
> Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?

At some point, you're going against the fundamental
character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
and go start your own organization if you can't abide
by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".


>>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
>> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
>> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
>> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
>> as is Karen/Sootikin.
>>
>
> The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.

False.


>>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
>>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
>>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
>>> Who has she hurt?
>> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>>
>
> Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?

She spilled it her for one and all. Sootikin/Karen
gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
she blabbers away here attacking the character of
others. She handed us the issues on a platter.


>>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
>>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
>>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
>>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
>>>>>> fellow schismatics.
>>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
>>>>>>> "harmful"?
>>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
>>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
>>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
>>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
>>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
>>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
>>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
>>> to listen.
>> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
>> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
>> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
>> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
>> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
>>
>
> Fine.

Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
unhinged. Check it out:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....bd58771102e561


>>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
>>>> or reject it.
>>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
>> St. Bede's did.
>>
>
> Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?

It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.


>>> You seem to be upset that
>>> they've chosen not to do that.
>> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
>> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
>> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
>>
>
> You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
> much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.

I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
preposterous.


>>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
>>>>>>>>> Is your
>>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
>>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
>>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
>>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
>>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
>>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
>>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
>>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
>>> Having a moral high ground
>> You don't.
>>
>
> Every minimally decent person

That lets you out.


>>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
>>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
>>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
>> Implicitly, she did.
>>
>
> Nonsense.

Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.


>>>>> instead of listing the
>>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
>>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
>>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
>>> I don't know.
>> You don't know anything.
>>
>
> No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,

No.


>>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
>>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
>>> credibility.
>> You don't know anything, rupie.
>>
>>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
>>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
>>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
>>>> I meet my standards,
>>> Then your standards aren't very high.
>> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
>>
>
> No.

Yes.


>>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
>>>> yours?
>>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
>> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
>> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
>> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
>>
>
> Er, no,

ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
hoc temporizing.


>>>> **** off.
>>> No, you **** off.
>> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
>>
>>>>> There's nothing wrong
>>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
>>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
>>>>> about casting the first stone.
>>>> It was relevant.
>>> No.
>> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
>> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
disqualifying factor.


>>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
>>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
>>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
>>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
>>> No, you didn't.
>> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
>>
>
> He didn't give any good reason.

He did.


>>>>>> How do you reconcile your
>>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
>>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
>>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>> Ridiculous.
>> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
>> do that a lot.
>>
>
> Your delusions

None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.


>>>>> Having sex with them when that is
>>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
>>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
>>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
>>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
>>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
>>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
>>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
>>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
>> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
>> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
>>
>
> You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.

I do know about it, rupie.


> Either the desire
> exists or it doesn't.

If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
desire.


>>>>>> How many of your medications were
>>>>>> tested on animals,
>>>>> One. I only take one medication.
>>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
>> Evasion noted, rupie.
>>
>
> No evasion,

Evasion, rupie; noted.


>> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
>> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
>> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
>> fire on students and professors.
>>
>
> We were talking about medications I take regularly.

We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
of your consumption of them.

You take them, and your willing consumption of them
queers any bullshit about "ar".


>>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
>>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
>>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
>>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
>>>>> medication in the near future.
>>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
>>> No.
>> You should, because you are one.
>
> No.

Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.

Check this, rupie. Here's the opinion someone in
a.r.c.e holds of Sootikin/Karen, and he didn't even
used to engage her in the goofball "animal rights"
groups, although he does have some awareness of her
participation the

That's true, I do. However, you have earned it. You
are a sick joke, a pathetic creature. I've read many
of your posts, some of your 'partner's' posts, and
some stuff I've found on the internet of a
biographical nature. You are a wretched, miserable
excuse for a human being. I don't have any animosity
for you, I don't hate you, I don't wish you any ill,
I would help you if I had the opportunity (Romans
12:20) -- but to be real blunt about it, I hold you
in the deepest contempt.


Sootikin/Karen has earned it. Karen doesn't make a
move in life without first thinking, "What can I do to
offend people who hold to traditional moral values?"

On May 2, 4:15 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 2, 1:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Apr 30, 10:15 pm, chico > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> How about the way she lives her own life -- not liking her
> >>>>>>>> son,
> >>>>>>> It's not a crime not to like your son.
> >>>>>> She pretends to be a follower of Christ. He said that to hate your
> >>>>>> brother is to hate God. She dislikes her son because he disagrees with
> >>>>>> her alternative lifestyle -- she made this clear when she expressed the
> >>>>>> desire she has that her grandson will rebel against her son and be ***
> >>>>>> like her.
> >>>>> Okay
> >>>> She loathes her son.
> >>> I'm not convinced you have all that much insight into the matter,
> >>> myself.
> >> He has more than enough insight into the matter, rupie.
> >> Karen/Sootikin has spilled her life story on usenet.
> >> Sootikin loathes her son. She has made that plain.
>
> >>>> He is everything she wasn't, and he stands for
> >>>> everything she hates about the world. Re-read what I wrote: she wrote
> >>>> that she HOPES her grandson will rebel against his father, that the kid
> >>>> will be *** like her.
> >>> Don't see a problem with that.
> >> You wouldn't. You're a vengeful adolescent just like
> >> Sootikin.
>
> > What is the problem with it? What would be so terrible about his son
> > being ***?
>
> There's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with the kid
> growing up to be ***, you ****wit. What's wrong is
> Sootikin's motive for wanting it. It's not for the
> kid, and it's not even a genuinely positive thing for
> her. She wants it because it would make her son
> unhappy, and she loathes her son. THAT'S what's wrong
> with it, you stupid shitbag: she wants something like
> that purely because it would make someone else miserable.
>

So you say. There could be all sorts of other reasons why she wants
it.

> > Why is there something wrong with having that hope?
>
> It's none of her business, that's what. How arrogant
> of her, and how stupid of you to support that arrogance.
>
> But that's an interesting angle you raise, rupie, you
> bucket of shit. You've just implicitly agreed that
> there's nothing wrong with a parent strongly hoping,
> praying, that his kid *doesn't* grow up to be queer.
>
> Right, rupie, you ****? There's nothing wrong with a
> parent desperately hoping his kid grows up straight.
>

No, of course not. That was the very point I was about to make as soon
as you said "It's none of her business", in fact.

> >>>> It's not enough that she abandoned her son, she
> >>>> hopes her grandson will, too. She's that selfish and self-absorbed. That
> >>>> isn't Christian.
> >>> Your hypocrisy in saying other people aren't Christian is just
> >>> sickening.
> >> You haven't shown any hypocrisy on chico's part.
>
> > The hypocrisy is obvious for all to see.
>
> ipse dixit
>
> >>> Never mind being Christian, let's just talk about
> >>> conforming to basic norms of civilized behaviour.
> >> You have no standing to lecture anyone about civilized
> >> behavior.
>
> > No, I'm afraid that's you
>
> No, rupie, you arrogant smug hypocrite, it's you.
>
> >> You're the most self-absorbed - that is,
> >> apathetic about civilization - person I've ever seen in
> >> usenet.
>
> > I'm not in the least self-absorbed.
>
> You are entirely self absorbed.
>

What was that about "ipse dixit"?

> >>> You once told me to
> >>> go **** myself with a broken bottle, on no provocation whatsoever.
> >> More than sufficient provocation.
>
> >> Did you do it? Why not?
>
> > Contemptible slimeball.
>
> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle, rupie.
>
> >>>> She has no ground to tell others what to believe or how
> >>>> to think about anything, especially in a church, ethical, or moral
> >>>> discussion.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >> Typical rupie one-word admission of defeat.
>
> > [...]
>
> >> You have no standing either, rupie.
>
> > No, that's you,
>
> No, that's you, rupie, you self-absorbed ****.
>
> >>>>>>>> whom she abandoned
> >>>>>>> At what age?
> >> About age 10. Her son was about 10, and Karen/Sootikin
> >> fobbed the boy off on her father so she could move to
> >> L.A. and take a job shampooing cats.
>
> > Fascinating. During the time I have known her, she has struck me as an
> > essentially decent person, in stark contrast to you and chico.
>
> She abandoned her son to pursue her infantile needs.
> She wants her grandson to grow up to be a queer merely
> to cause her son unhappiness. That's indecent, rupie.
>

Well, that's all as may be. If I were you, I'd worry more about your
own lack of decency.

> >>>>>> Clearly at a young age considering she didn't take him to the dress-up
> >>>>>> commune. He ended up in military school as a teen.
> >>>>>>>> while she joined dress-up communes and NAMBLA
> >>>>>>>> and other weird shit, as a person (the feeling seems to be mutual since
> >>>>>>>> she's limited to e-mail contact with him) -- and pontificating to others
> >>>>>>>> about how they should live theirs?
> >>>>>>> Never noticed her doing that.
> >> There's a lot that escapes your notice, rupie. THat's
> >> what self-absorption does to a person.
>
> > If you can't substantiate your point with evidence,
>
> Done, many times over.
>

Ridiculous clown.

> >>>>>> You're not attentive then.
> >>>>> I don't think
> >>>> I've noticed.
> >>>>>>>> How about the harm she's brought to
> >>>>>>>> her church in *demanding* schism which is followed by her hypocrisy in
> >>>>>>>> wanting amity and then her greed in demanding that she and her fellow
> >>>>>>>> radicals control all church assets, including in parishes that in good
> >>>>>>>> conscience can't support the apostasy she supports?
> >>>>>>> Don't know anything about that.
> >>>>>> It's clear from your childish reply that you don't know much of anything.
> >>>>> It is your reply that is childish. You are completely missing the
> >>>>> point of the saying about casting the first stone, and instead
> >>>>> bringing up a long list of supposed sins that Karen has committed.
> >>>> They're not supposed, they're genuine. She's sown discord and division
> >>>> in her church
> >>> I really don't care.
> >> You're lying. You *do* care - that's why you make a
> >> continued strained point of calling them "supposed" sins.
>
> > You're a bit confused here,
>
> No confusion, rupie, you shitbag.
>

Yes, there was, as I explained. But trying to explain anything to you
is like trying to explain to a duck how to play chess.

> >>> Any individual is free to try to influence an
> >>> organization she belongs to in whatever way she likes.
> >> No, that's not so.
>
> > Why not, as long as you're not violating anyone's rights?
>
> At some point, you're going against the fundamental
> character of the organization. It's your duty to leave
> and go start your own organization if you can't abide
> by the basic charter of the one you think is "wrong".
>

Why not? And who decides what the "fundamental character" of the
organization is? Everyone has their own conception of what is most
essential to Christianity. Some people don't think that silly outdated
conceptions of sexual morality are essential to it.


> >>> I don't regard that as morally wrong.
> >> Of course you don't, rupie. That's because you're an
> >> amoral relativist who doesn't understand character,
> >> because you have none. You're a complete narcissist,
> >> as is Karen/Sootikin.
>
> > The idea of you lecturing me about morality is a joke.
>
> False.
>

Pffffffft.

> >>>> -- her beliefs are far outside the beliefs of the church
> >>>> -- and in her own family. That's real, dumbass. The people she's hurt
> >>>> are real, and so is their confusion and pain.
> >>> Who has she hurt?
> >> Her son and the son's wife. The grandson.
>
> > Very interesting. And why, exactly, is it any of your business?
>
> She spilled it her for one and all.

So what? What entitles you to rub her nose in it ever after?

> Sootikin/Karen
> gave compelling evidence of her filthy character, then
> she blabbers away here attacking the character of
> others. She handed us the issues on a platter.
>

When has she ever attacked anyone else's character?

> >>>>>>> It's inevitable that different people
> >>>>>>> will have different views about the direction the church should take.
> >>>>>> Yes, and it's inevitable that she wants everyone to embrace her position
> >>>>>> or get the hell out and leave the deed of the property to her and her
> >>>>>> fellow schismatics.
> >>>>>>> By what objective measure can you say that her actions have been
> >>>>>>> "harmful"?
> >>>>>> Schism. Emotional distress. Etc.
> >>>>> Why aren't the actions of the other side equally "harmful" by the same
> >>>>> measure? Intolerance causes emotional distress.
> >>>> Who's being intolerant, you clueless ****? People aren't forced into
> >>>> belief systems in our countries. She's free to go join another.
> >>> And she's also free to argue for her own point of view to the
> >>> organization she prefers to belong to for as long as they're prepared
> >>> to listen.
> >> They weren't prepared to listen to her any longer at
> >> all at St. Bede's in Santa Fe. The rector there,
> >> Father Murphy, booted Sootikin and Sylvia out of that
> >> church, thanks to the information Derek supplied to him
> >> concerning Sootikin's open advocacy of child molestation.
>
> > Fine.
>
> Yes, fine. It was also hilarious. Derek published his
> note to Father Murphy, and Sootikin nearly came
> unhinged. Check it out:http://groups.google.com/group/talk....g/c2bd58771102...
>
> >>>> Regardless, religion is authority not democracy -- you either embrace it
> >>>> or reject it.
> >>> Then the church can tell Karen to go away.
> >> St. Bede's did.
>
> > Yes, so you said, and your point is... ?
>
> It's exactly what Sootikin *should* do.
>

Well, presumably she had no choice in the matter.

> >>> You seem to be upset that
> >>> they've chosen not to do that.
> >> Karen/Sootikin doesn't engage "the church". She's like
> >> you, rupie: her "activism" is in fact passivism: she
> >> blabbers away in usenet, and that's as far as it goes.
>
> > You certainly have absolutely no insight into my activism, and I very
> > much doubt you have any into Karen's, either.
>
> I have ample insight into the passivism of both of you,
> rupie. You are not an "activist"; the very idea is
> preposterous.
>

No, Ball, you have absolutely no clue about what I do in pursuit of my
political goals. The idea of you being competent to comment about
whether I am an activist is what's preposterous.

> >>>> Karen just wants it both ways.
> >>>>>>>>> Is your
> >>>>>>>>> behaviour on usenet above reproach, is it?
> >>>>>>>> It's certainly above yours, Rupie. Way above yours.
> >>>>>>> That's an interesting perspective. Would you care to elaborate?
> >>>>>> Sure. You're a whiny blowhard who sticks his nose in only to state
> >>>>>> things like "Don't know anything about that" -- which is obvious -- and
> >>>>>> then try to stake out a phony moral high ground about it.
> >>>>> I'm not trying to stake out any sort of moral high ground.
> >>>> Good. You don't have access to that kind of real estate anyway.
> >>> Having a moral high ground
> >> You don't.
>
> > Every minimally decent person
>
> That lets you out.
>

Stop projecting.

> >>>>> I'm suggesting it might be more profitable for you,
> >>>> Did I ask for your benighted opinion?
> >>> No. And Karen didn't ask for yours either.
> >> Implicitly, she did.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Another rupie one-word concession of defeat.
>

Imbecile.

> >>>>> instead of listing the
> >>>>> faults of people you don't like (I notice you don't say anything about
> >>>>> your pal Jonathan Ball),
> >>>> Has he joined a church and caused schism? Has he abandoned his family?
> >>> I don't know.
> >> You don't know anything.
>
> > No, I'm afraid that's an overgeneralization,
>
> No.
>
> >>>> He has more room and credibility than Karen to address these matters.
> >>> Rudy Canoza lacks the slightest shred of intellectual or moral
> >>> credibility.
> >> You don't know anything, rupie.
>
> >>>>> to reflect that you're the only person you
> >>>>> can actually change, and just worry about whether you yourself are
> >>>>> meeting the standards you would like to meet.
> >>>> I meet my standards,
> >>> Then your standards aren't very high.
> >> Leagues above yours, rupie, you self-absorbed narcissist.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> >>>> why are you making suggestions for how I can meet
> >>>> yours?
> >>> Because you'd be a better person if you did,
> >> No. Your standards aren't standards at all. You
> >> embrace an ever-shifting expediency. You have no moral
> >> standards at all; it's just whatever makes rupie feel good.
>
> > Er, no,
>
> ERRRRRRRRRRRR - yes, rupie. You're completely about ad
> hoc temporizing.
>

My moral standards are more stringent than yours in just about every
way possible. For example, I treat my fellow human beings decently.

> >>>> **** off.
> >>> No, you **** off.
> >> No, *you* **** off, rupie.
>
> >>>>> There's nothing wrong
> >>>>> with my saying I don't know anything about what's going on with
> >>>>> Karen's church. Of course I don't, and it wasn't relevant to my point
> >>>>> about casting the first stone.
> >>>> It was relevant.
> >>> No.
> >> Yes. It's relevant. Your lack of knowledge of what's
> >> going on disqualifies you from saying anything.
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does. Lack of knowledge is always a
> disqualifying factor.
>

Nope. First of all, the debate that Karen has initiated within her
church is irrelevant to evaluating her character, and second, it
doesn't bear on my point about casting the first stone.

> >>>>>> Now it's your turn, you fatuous little prick.
> >>>>> See what I mean? What, exactly, have I done that you should swear at
> >>>>> me like that? Not exactly Christian.
> >>>> I told you what you did to warrant that.
> >>> No, you didn't.
> >> Yes, he did, you fatuous little prick and lying shitbag.
>
> > He didn't give any good reason.
>
> He did.
>

No, he did not, Ball. What do *you* think was the good reason? What,
in *your* sick depraved mind, constitutes an adequate excuse to start
swearing at someone? Your parents really didn't bring you up very
well.

> >>>>>> How do you reconcile your
> >>>>>> AR beliefs with your pro-bestiality views? Why is it wrong to eat
> >>>>>> animals but okay to molest them?
> >>>>> Raising animals for food harms them.
> >>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>> Ridiculous.
> >> Another one-word concession of defeat from rupie. You
> >> do that a lot.
>
> > Your delusions
>
> None, rupie. When you blabber a one-word answer, and a
> false one at that, it's a concession of defeat.
>

Ball, you know perfectly well that it is ridiculous to deny that
modern farming methods harm animals. When someone makes a nonsensical
statement, a one-word answer pointing out its nonsensicality is not a
concession of defeat.

> >>>>> Having sex with them when that is
> >>>>> what they want doesn't. It's pretty simple, really.
> >>>> How do you know what animals want? How do you distinguish between
> >>>> conditioning/grooming and sincere desires by animals to have sex outside
> >>>> their own species? If they're so keen to have sex with humans, why do
> >>>> they discriminate against so many other species (e.g., why don't horses
> >>>> try to mount dogs just to get their jollies if they're so horny)?
> >>> I don't think the fact that a desire may have been influenced by
> >>> conditioning necessarily undermines the sincerity of the desire.
> >> The "desire" is artificial, you fatuous little prick.
> >> It *only* seems to exist *because* of the conditioning.
>
> > You don't know anything about the matter, Rudy.
>
> I do know about it, rupie.
>

Very interesting. What is the basis of your knowledge?

> > Either the desire
> > exists or it doesn't.
>
> If it is a conditioned response, it isn't a legitimate
> desire.
>

Why not? And what is "conditioning" anyway? How could humans function
in modern society without some "conditioning"?

> >>>>>> How many of your medications were
> >>>>>> tested on animals,
> >>>>> One. I only take one medication.
> >>>> It was tested on animals. You benefit from "suffering" and "abuse."
> >> Evasion noted, rupie.
>
> > No evasion,
>
> Evasion, rupie; noted.
>

Nope, no evasion. On the other hand, you evaded what you just snipped.

> >> You're lying, anyway. You have taken other
> >> prescription drugs in your life apart from the one that
> >> keeps you from climbing up the clock tower and opening
> >> fire on students and professors.
>
> > We were talking about medications I take regularly.
>
> We are talking about prescription drugs, full stop.
> There was no limitation on the frequency or regularity
> of your consumption of them.
>

He said "How many of your medications were tested on animals". To me
that implies he is talking about medications I take regularly - at
least once in the last year, say. If he meant every drug I've ever
taken in my entire life, then I misunderstood him. To accuse me of
lying is absurd.


> You take them, and your willing consumption of them
> queers any bullshit about "ar".
>

No, it doesn't, Ball. And, as already pointed out, you totally evaded
the question of what you would do in similar circumstances, so all
this ranting is totally lame. You're not such a moral hero that you're
entitled to criticize someone for failing to expose themselves to a
risk of psychosis.

> >>>>>> and when you will stop taking them -- even at the
> >>>>>> risk of again requiring institutionalization -- because of your AR views?
> >>>>> I've never been institutionalized. I recovered from my two psychotic
> >>>>> episodes in my own home. I don't have any plans to stop taking
> >>>>> medication in the near future.
> >>>> So you admit you're a hypocrite.
> >>> No.
> >> You should, because you are one.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. You are a hypocrite, rupie. A shitbag, too.

Get a life.