 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:17:43 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
> >
> >> To those others who think they can mess with aQ: I have enough truth and
> >> reality to bury you. I am not to be trifled with.
> >
> > Heh, the last guy who said that to me is about to get his ass handed to
> > him in court.
>
> alphaQuad also wrote:
> "Ah crap. Someone is going to take that the wrong way, or just act like
> they took the wrong way to cause dissention. I'm on it.
>
> I meant bury you with words of truth with no actual threat implied or
> intended."
>
> He wrote that *before* your mention of asses and courts. You can't sue
> someone for mere words, can you? Maybe aQ's plonked nature means you
> can't read every post written by him...
>
> Sam
Sam
Only if you make threats to harm.
I think plonked is just a way for him to hide when he doesnt have the courage to
respond, or is just speechless and dumbfounded.
Also I have given the opportunity for a truce, but he doesn't want peace,
obviously, or he would act Human. Hurting others seems so much more fun to
these types, than peace. He'd reconcile, drop charges on this guy he mentions
and accept responsibility, if he had a heart.
Dark souls only enjoy your pain. There should be no doubt to existence of dark
souls. I give you crystal clear example.
aQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:45:15 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:17:43 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
>>
>> > To those others who think they can mess with aQ: I have enough truth
>> > and reality to bury you. I am not to be trifled with.
>>
>> Heh, the last guy who said that to me is about to get his ass handed to
>> him in court.
>>
>> It is my observation that those who make statements like this tend to
>> have a very high opinion of themselves and believe that the world
>> should agree with them. Thing is, people who act like this are
>> *rarely* worthy of that high opinion.
>>
>> Make of that what you will (and yes, you are certainly still plonked).
>>
>> Jim
>
> Yes we know what you are and that you are capable of childish threats.
Pfft. I'm not impressed.
> I
> don't respond well to threats and dont make threats myself.
Nor do I. You'll note I didn't mention who was the instigator in the
upcoming court action, either - I'm on the defending side, as it turns
out.
> The true
> guilty party is someone truly evil that supports an unconstitutional
> drug war and the torture of millions. God is my judge not some moron on
> a bench. And god will be your judge as well.
Feh. That's the true sign of someone who meets the criteria I laid out -
someone who thinks no earthly authority applies to them. Most would say
"delusional". I simply say *laughable*.
> plonked? lol
I cannot tell a lie - you make me laugh, AQ. I'll give you that. So
while you're scoring a whopping -9999 in my newsreader (rating
"ignored"), I read the group with ignored posts showing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:15:05 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
> Jim put away the shovel you are digging in too deep, you wont get out. I
> am not to be trifled with as my words only (not actions) shall prove.
LOL! This sh*t is gold! ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:52:10 -0700, stbenge wrote:
> He wrote that *before* your mention of asses and courts. You can't sue
> someone for mere words, can you?
Well, you can when it comes to libel, but he's not approached anything
libelous. As for *suing*, I never made the claim that I was going to sue
*him* - funny how some will take a mention of court as "dude, I'm going
to so SUE your butt". As mentioned in my recent reply to AQ, I'm on the
defending side. Oh, and the person who had the summons issued by the
court in question was so convinced he could win, he went to *small
claims*.
AQ strikes me as being somewhat similar in nature - disrespect for
authority (except for his deity of choice, it would seem) and full of
words, some of which even make sense. ;-)
> Maybe aQ's plonked nature means you
> can't read every post written by him...
Nah, I read with my ignored posts showing. The score shows up in black
so I remember that I've flagged the poster as ignored, but it's sometimes
too hard to resist a response, try as I might. When people say
ridiculous things, I have a hard time holding back. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:41:43 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
> I think plonked is just a way for him to hide when he doesnt have the
> courage to respond, or is just speechless and dumbfounded.
Well, certainly speechless and dumbfounded - people with the attitude
you've exhibited here display interesting psychological tendencies, and
it is difficult to resist prodding to see what response I can get.
But most of the time, there's just too much time investment, so your
'plonked' status in my reader simply is a reminder to myself not to waste
*too* much time in conversation, because your online persona (at least)
is one that seeks to incite or inflame.
Sorry to ruin your little game, but I've got you pretty well figured out,
and while I find the traits you exhibit detestable, I find the
personality fascinating because of the way in which the persona expresses
itself. People sometimes express themselves differently in their online
persona than IRL, so I honestly couldn't say what kind of person anyone
exhibiting this type of behaviour is like IRL, unless I've actually
encountered them IRL.
So, for example, your "doesn't have the courage to respond" is nothing
more than an incitement. It's purile name-calling in its lowest form -
an attempt to try to say "oooh, he's scared!" like some frightened little
child. That's funny, because you don't know me, and only the bits of my
history (if you've been paying attention, which I somehow doubt) that
I've posted here. I've been around online communities (have built a few
in my time, in actuality) and there is nothing anyone can say that will
*frighten* me.
Your words and your actions don't even come close to invoking any sort of
fear - just laughter. So thanks, aq, for the laughs. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:41:43 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
>
> > I think plonked is just a way for him to hide when he doesnt have the
> > courage to respond, or is just speechless and dumbfounded.
>
> Well, certainly speechless and dumbfounded - people with the attitude
> you've exhibited here display interesting psychological tendencies, and
> it is difficult to resist prodding to see what response I can get.
>
> But most of the time, there's just too much time investment, so your
> 'plonked' status in my reader simply is a reminder to myself not to waste
> *too* much time in conversation, because your online persona (at least)
> is one that seeks to incite or inflame.
>
> Sorry to ruin your little game, but I've got you pretty well figured out,
> and while I find the traits you exhibit detestable, I find the
> personality fascinating because of the way in which the persona expresses
> itself. People sometimes express themselves differently in their online
> persona than IRL, so I honestly couldn't say what kind of person anyone
> exhibiting this type of behaviour is like IRL, unless I've actually
> encountered them IRL.
>
> So, for example, your "doesn't have the courage to respond" is nothing
> more than an incitement. It's purile name-calling in its lowest form -
> an attempt to try to say "oooh, he's scared!" like some frightened little
> child. That's funny, because you don't know me, and only the bits of my
> history (if you've been paying attention, which I somehow doubt) that
> I've posted here. I've been around online communities (have built a few
> in my time, in actuality) and there is nothing anyone can say that will
> *frighten* me.
>
> Your words and your actions don't even come close to invoking any sort of
> fear - just laughter. So thanks, aq, for the laughs. :-)
>
> Jim
It is my pleasure. At least while your laughing you'll be less likely to incite,
inflame or harm others. I wouldnt call it a strength, but something you do well.
Fear is another thing you can't feel like a good soul can. Fear makes people
more intelligent if they know when to listen to it.
It been fun to reveal the real you.
I offer something you hate, Peace,
aQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:09:05 -0400, alphaQuad wrote:
>> Your words and your actions don't even come close to invoking any sort
>> of fear - just laughter. So thanks, aq, for the laughs. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> It is my pleasure. At least while your laughing you'll be less likely to
> incite, inflame or harm others.
Heh, this isn't something I set out to do. But I do have strong opinions.
> I wouldnt call it a strength, but
> something you do well.
Well, you don't know me well enough to make such a judgment. But
whatever floats your boat.
> Fear is another thing you can't feel like a good
> soul can.
Well, again, you don't know me well enough to make such a judgment. I
tend to agree with the statement someone said that "a man who fears
nothing loves nothing".
> Fear makes people more intelligent if they know when to listen
> to it.
Now there's something I can sorta agree with.
> It been fun to reveal the real you.
Well, if you think so. To you, I'm just words on the screen; to me, you
are just words on the screen. We don't know each other at all. For all
I know, you're just a persona that someone plays online; and for all you
know, the same is true of me.
> I offer something you hate,
Nah, I gave up on hate long, long ago. To quote Douglas Adams, "Hate is
of course an almost entirely terrible thing." BTDTGTTS, didn't like it.
But that doesn't mean that when you (or anyone else) is being ridiculous,
I'm not going to point it out if I think it's appropriate to do so. And
quite often I find the things you say to be utterly ludicrous. ;-)
> Peace,
> aQ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad wrote:
> No takers?
>
>
> So what do you call an institution that encourages and promotes something you
> were told not to do?
>
> A Church. Pehaps if you just changed the word "satanist" to "stupid" and you
> could finish the book, heh.
Again with the not making sense thing ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Again with the not making sense thing ...
Seems the whole train did get sidetracked, piece it back to gether for you
and we have:
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I think you'd get a kick out of reading about MKULTRA and Monarch. I
> stopped reading when they accused the Catholic Church of being satanist,
> though.
>
Perhaps "satanist" was a poor choice of words for you.
So what do you call an institution that encourages and promotes something you
were told not to do? ADJECTIVES are everything now arent they.
Matthew
6:2 When therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the
hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of
men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
6:5 And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand
and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be
seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
So what do you call an institution that encourages and promotes something you
were told not to do?
A Church. Pehaps if you just changed the word "satanist" to "stupid" then you
could finish the book, heh.
Any better Mike?
Thinking some are viewing only one msg at time rather than the web board.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad wrote:
> Seems the whole train did get sidetracked, piece it back to gether for you
> and we have:
>
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > I think you'd get a kick out of reading about MKULTRA and Monarch. I
> > stopped reading when they accused the Catholic Church of being satanist,
> > though.
> >
> Perhaps "satanist" was a poor choice of words for you.
>
> So what do you call an institution that encourages and promotes something you
> were told not to do? ADJECTIVES are everything now arent they.
>
> Matthew
> 6:2 When therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the
> hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of
> men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
> 6:5 And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand
> and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be
> seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
>
>
> So what do you call an institution that encourages and promotes something you
> were told not to do?
>
> A Church. Pehaps if you just changed the word "satanist" to "stupid" then you
> could finish the book, heh.
>
> Any better Mike?
>
> Thinking some are viewing only one msg at time rather than the web board.
>
It's still not making sense to me. Are you saying that churches in
general are a bad thing, or just the Catholic Church? Or -- are you
stating that Christianity has it wrong?
Stupid wouldn't make sense in the context of the book I was looking at.
Since they were basically stating that the Catholic church was run by a
satanic cult. Admittedly, I don't know anyone in the upper echelons of
the church hierarchy, I knew a lot of what went on "behind the scenes"
(so to speak) at a Catholic church. Nothing strange or underhanded, most
of what went on was pretty straightforward. No one was doing anything
dishonest (or at least more dishonest than most decent people) Nothing
at all strange went on either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
