Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (14903)	5/29/2001 11:31:09 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

rant (rãnt) v., rant·ed, rant·ing, rants. v.intr. To speak or declaim in a violent, loud, or vehement manner; rave. v.tr. To utter with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience. n. Violent, loud, or extravagant speech. See Synonyms at bombast. Chiefly British. Wild or uproarious merriment

To: Greg or e who wrote (14903)	5/30/2001 12:36:49 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Careful, booing is now prohibited... And children no longer have the freedom of association to throw the ball to their friends. And if they do it too often they must not only voluntarily put themselves out of the game but voluntarily turn themselves in for psychological punishment. Talk about throwing oneself into the fire! Kids are tough and I'm sure the students of X are not such damaged goods they cannot be repaired. Still, I wonder how those kids will compete with the children of Kosovo or Tutsi rebel offspring or Canadian kids who still play hockey late at night on frozen ponds without a referee. Will the Island Inhabitants obey the ever watchful eye of SOLONG? Probably not, the human heart has wonderful rebellious instincts against the imposition of b.s. Remember, according to the precepts of SOLONG if you disagree with this post you must immediately report for anger counseling.

To: Greg or e who wrote (14903)	5/30/2001 8:01:57 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So you believe that anyone that comes here to discuss any topic must automatically assume they are wrong and you are right, or they are not genuine? Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? You believe the opposite of my position to be true, does that disqualify you or somehow de-legitimize your motives? Why should you receive the benefit of the doubt when you deny it to others? The above paragraph points out how addled you are. Every sentence was made up by you, not by me. And every sentence is false. It is almost impossible to discuss anything with you because you don't seem to be able to grasp what is being said. You mix up ideas like you're mixing up brain salad. This is what I said: "You believe that the bible is Truth and absolutely inerrant. You have said so. So your discussion with me has never been genuine." This has absolutely nothing to do with the trash that you just made up. Let me help you with it. Having a position is not the same thing as having a FIXED position. My "Should God Be Replaced" is an invitation for people to honestly explore religions, scriptures, science, etc. and to struggle with the ideas and concepts. You, however, considered your delusions of truth, to, in fact, be Absolute TRUTH. To comprehend any part of Absolute TRUTH would require an Absolute COMPREHENSION. In other words, you believed you were God! From the beginning I found that to be so amusing! The reason your discussion with me was not genuine was simply this: You were not honestly sharing in a search for truth. You believed you WERE the truth. Your goal, therefore, was one of obfuscation and rationalization. Nothing anyone said, or could have said, had any chance of engaging you in a reasoning process--because reasoning was not your goal. Your goal was to defend your delusions by denying all the evidence that was presented to you showing that the Tribal God of the bible was evil and psychotic. An actual God would presumably be none of those things, but you were not there to share in the reasoning process. You were there to tell us that you had read in some old tribal documents that Yahweh was God, and that you knew it was true because one line in the documents said it was true. This was the extent of your committment to "reasoning". BTW I have posed the same question to you and all I get is out of context scripture passages (talking of pedophiles) Sorry, but you did not. As for the rest of your post, it speaks for itself: spit and bile from an angry and frustrated man. Other than the fact that you are capable of braying like a donkey--what else were you trying to communicate about your character? And as for your complaint that "vituperative" is too big a word for you--well, the word ain't going to get any shorter while you stand there gawking. Grab a dictionary and deal with it.