On 23/09/2014 20:25, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2014 20:59, schrieb Stephen:
>> On 23/09/2014 14:57, andrel wrote:
>>> On 22-9-2014 16:49, Stephen wrote:
>>>> 2. What does a macho-man do when his back is to the wall?
>>> Turn around and fight.
>>>
>>> (First heard that one on HIGNFY years ago. I think it was Ian on Blair,
>>> but probably that joke is much older).
>>>
>>
>> It is a joke?
>> It is the answer I would have given.
>
> Turn around and fight? Well, Chuck Norris certainly would.
> Roundhouse-kick style.
>

But then if your back is to the wall and you turn around you are facing 
the wall.
English is a great language.

For instance:
There is no double positive.

Aye right!


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I say part of a YT video of about 2-3 hrs long, and it's just some more 
self-concluded christian BS, to prove that Jesus is coming soon, yes 
more christian fan fiction or mental masturbation, anyway irrelephant 
unless they decide to make another inquisition or crusade, oh wait..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W41pvvZs0

Somebody should create laws against this kind of christian dictatorship 
on Human Rights.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 20:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity most
>>>> to be feared
>>>
>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be feared.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>
>
> And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.

Yes. Now that you mentioned this, I sincerely wonder what the position 
of the devil can be for them. Is there a place for him? Recalling Salem, 
I suppose there is.

>
>> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he will
>> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
>> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>>
>
> Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?

Not /priests/ sir! Those are the minions of the Babylon whore who sits 
in Rome!

But yes, I think there certainly is power play involved.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2014 22:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/09/2014 20:25, clipka wrote:
>> Am 23.09.2014 20:59, schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 23/09/2014 14:57, andrel wrote:
>>>> On 22-9-2014 16:49, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> 2. What does a macho-man do when his back is to the wall?
>>>> Turn around and fight.
>>>>
>>>> (First heard that one on HIGNFY years ago. I think it was Ian on Blair,
>>>> but probably that joke is much older).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a joke?
>>> It is the answer I would have given.
>>
>> Turn around and fight? Well, Chuck Norris certainly would.
>> Roundhouse-kick style.
>>
>
> But then if your back is to the wall and you turn around you are facing
> the wall.
> English is a great language.

LOL! I had not seen that one coming at my face!

>
> For instance:
> There is no double positive.
>
> Aye right!
>

Oh! that one is more subtle :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 08:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-9-2014 20:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity
>>>>> most
>>>>> to be feared
>>>>
>>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be
>>>> feared.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>>
>>
>> And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.
>
> Yes. Now that you mentioned this, I sincerely wonder what the position
> of the devil can be for them. Is there a place for him? Recalling Salem,
> I suppose there is.
>

As a big stick.

>>
>>> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he will
>>> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
>>> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>>>
>>
>> Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?
>
> Not /priests/ sir! Those are the minions of the Babylon whore who sits
> in Rome!
>

LOL the attitude in Ulster and Scotland.
It must be something to do with the House of Orange. ;-)

> But yes, I think there certainly is power play involved.
>

Too true.



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 9:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/09/2014 08:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-9-2014 20:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2014 15:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 23-9-2014 12:04, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 22/09/2014 08:48, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is interesting. In Christian terms the devil being the entity
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> to be feared
>>>>>
>>>>> In some parts of the Christian world it is God who is most to be
>>>>> feared.
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ah yes! The righteous, angry, vengeful, Old Testamentish God! I knew a
>>>> few of them who bowed and cringed under his baleful stare :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that is the one that all Fundamentalists believe in.
>>
>> Yes. Now that you mentioned this, I sincerely wonder what the position
>> of the devil can be for them. Is there a place for him? Recalling Salem,
>> I suppose there is.
>>
>
> As a big stick.

Ouch! That hurts! ;-)

>
>>>
>>>> And still it seems to me, the devil is more to be feared because he
>>>> will
>>>> drive you under that baleful stare. Devil and God allied together to
>>>> bring down the flock and make them meek.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Keep them in their place? Kowtowing to the priests?
>>
>> Not /priests/ sir! Those are the minions of the Babylon whore who sits
>> in Rome!
>>
>
> LOL the attitude in Ulster and Scotland.
> It must be something to do with the House of Orange. ;-)

Truth is that the House of Orange has become very discreet where 
religion is concerned but then we are talking about a different Orange 
when in Ulster or Scotland...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 09:07, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> As a big stick.
>
> Ouch! That hurts! ;-)
>
>>

As it is meant to.


>>
>> LOL the attitude in Ulster and Scotland.
>> It must be something to do with the House of Orange. ;-)
>
> Truth is that the House of Orange has become very discreet where
> religion is concerned but then we are talking about a different Orange
> when in Ulster or Scotland...

Nope! The same House of Orange.
It takes its name from King Billy (Willem III prince of the House of 
Orange, later William III of Great Britain) during the Glorious Revolution.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 11:19, Stephen wrote:
> Nope! The same House of Orange.
> It takes its name from King Billy (Willem III prince of the House of
> Orange, later William III of Great Britain) during the Glorious Revolution.
>

Sorry, I did not made myself clear. The same /house/ indeed, but the 
orangist idea in Ulster and Scotland is light years away from what the 
house represents nowadays in its home country, and over the last century 
its religious identity so to speak has become increasingly liberal to 
the point that the present queen consort is not a protestant and - if I 
am correct - was not asked to become one.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2014 12:05, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 24-9-2014 11:19, Stephen wrote:
>> Nope! The same House of Orange.
>> It takes its name from King Billy (Willem III prince of the House of
>> Orange, later William III of Great Britain) during the Glorious
>> Revolution.
>>
>
> Sorry, I did not made myself clear. The same /house/ indeed, but the
> orangist idea in Ulster and Scotland is light years away from what the
> house represents nowadays in its home country, and over the last century
> its religious identity so to speak has become increasingly liberal to
> the point that the present queen consort is not a protestant and - if I
> am correct - was not asked to become one.
>

You did make yourself clear, Thomas.
But someone need to take the blame. ;-)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2014 14:11, Stephen wrote:
> You did make yourself clear, Thomas.
> But someone need to take the blame. ;-)
>
>

Oh right! Did I tell you about the day I thought I stepped on a sand 
hump, which proved to be cow dung?  :-D

Thomas

Post a reply to this message