On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 10:16:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <cthfgvohfms02emue6bgvd0cmgu2lq3sfe[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:32:54 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> >> >That argument doesn't work too well. The Bible is also pretty clear on a
>> >> >lot of other stuff that *nobody* (sane) takes seriously anymore.
>> >>
>> >> I think there are many people that use the Bible as a foundation of
>> >> what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is one of those areas. There
>> >> are many others. This isn't news to anyone.
>> >
>> >There aren't many people who use the Bible as a foundation of what is
>> >right and wrong. There are many people who claim to, and who may
>> >honestly believe that they do, but an objective reading of the text
>> >reveals a system of morals to which no sane member of a modern society
>> >would subscribe.
>>
>> No, ZnU, what you as an atheist fail to realize is that there is the
>> Old Covenant and a New Covenant. Its a mistake many ignorant of
>> Christianity make. You can tell who these people are because they're
>> always waving around Mosaic Laws from the Old Testament around
>> claiming that people need to follow them in order to be good
>> Christians.
>
>I understand that many Christians choose to ignore parts of the OT which
>they find inconvenient, but there's only support in the text of the NT
>for some of that. It doesn't simply declare everything in the OT to be
>null and void.

Hardly. Part of Christ's message was that people were getting the laws
wrong. This is illustrated by His question 'Was the Sabbath made for
man or was man made for the Sabbath?' in reply to accusations that He
wasn't following the directives to do absolutely nothing on the
Sabbath.
The Mosaic Laws were put in place for man's benefit not as something
to blindly follow.
>
>> >What people really mean when their say their beliefs (moral or
>> >otherwise) are founded in the Bible is that their beliefs are founded in
>> >the interpretation of the Bible preferred by themselves or (much more
>> >frequently) by their particular church. Such interpretations are nothing
>> >more than the result of people bending the meaning of the text to fit
>> >their pre-existing belief systems, so there's no holiness to them, even
>> >if one takes it for granted that the Bible itself is the word of God.
>>
>> Pardon me if I don't take my Bible lessons to seriously when there's
>> an atheist in the pulpit.
>
>This is a bit like the "Anyone who likes the Mac is technically
>incompetent and therefore isn't worth listening to" bit we see so often
>around here. It's nothing but a cheap way to dismiss arguments you don't
>like.

Hardly. Its a bit like if someone posted that 'Macs suck because they
can only display color on Tuesdays, if you point them due north their
HDs erase themselves and if you don't put a piece of tape over any
unused ports all your data will fall out.' How seriously would take
somone who posted that? That's right about the same level you and
ZnU's pronouncements on Christianity are at.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <46phgv8f4okpul41t47ucfkapsteo14pjo[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> Pardon me if I don't take my Bible lessons to seriously when there's
>>> an atheist in the pulpit.

>>This is a bit like the "Anyone who likes the Mac is technically
>>incompetent and therefore isn't worth listening to" bit we see so often
>>around here. It's nothing but a cheap way to dismiss arguments you don't
>>like.

>Hardly. Its a bit like if someone posted that 'Macs suck because they
>can only display color on Tuesdays, if you point them due north their
>HDs erase themselves and if you don't put a piece of tape over any
>unused ports all your data will fall out.' How seriously would take
>somone who posted that? That's right about the same level you and
>ZnU's pronouncements on Christianity are at.

I'd say it's on the same level as your "homosexuality is baaad cuz the
bible says so" prattle.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <46phgv8f4okpul41t47ucfkapsteo14pjo[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 10:16:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <cthfgvohfms02emue6bgvd0cmgu2lq3sfe[at]4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:32:54 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >
> >> >> >That argument doesn't work too well. The Bible is also pretty clear on
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >lot of other stuff that *nobody* (sane) takes seriously anymore.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there are many people that use the Bible as a foundation of
> >> >> what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is one of those areas. There
> >> >> are many others. This isn't news to anyone.
> >> >
> >> >There aren't many people who use the Bible as a foundation of what is
> >> >right and wrong. There are many people who claim to, and who may
> >> >honestly believe that they do, but an objective reading of the text
> >> >reveals a system of morals to which no sane member of a modern society
> >> >would subscribe.
> >>
> >> No, ZnU, what you as an atheist fail to realize is that there is the
> >> Old Covenant and a New Covenant. Its a mistake many ignorant of
> >> Christianity make. You can tell who these people are because they're
> >> always waving around Mosaic Laws from the Old Testament around
> >> claiming that people need to follow them in order to be good
> >> Christians.
> >
> >I understand that many Christians choose to ignore parts of the OT which
> >they find inconvenient, but there's only support in the text of the NT
> >for some of that. It doesn't simply declare everything in the OT to be
> >null and void.
>
> Hardly. Part of Christ's message was that people were getting the laws
> wrong. This is illustrated by His question 'Was the Sabbath made for
> man or was man made for the Sabbath?' in reply to accusations that He
> wasn't following the directives to do absolutely nothing on the
> Sabbath.
> The Mosaic Laws were put in place for man's benefit not as something
> to blindly follow.

Once you start decide that it's all right to pay attention to some laws
and ignore others, you can no longer use the Bible to support your
position, because it doesn't support your interpretation over other
interpretations.

[snip]

--
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just
because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. on May 19, 2003

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:54:18 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <46phgv8f4okpul41t47ucfkapsteo14pjo[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 10:16:43 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >In article <cthfgvohfms02emue6bgvd0cmgu2lq3sfe[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:32:54 -0400, ZnU <znu[at]acedsl.com> chose to
>> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >
>> >> >> >That argument doesn't work too well. The Bible is also pretty clear on
>> >> >> >a
>> >> >> >lot of other stuff that *nobody* (sane) takes seriously anymore.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think there are many people that use the Bible as a foundation of
>> >> >> what is right and wrong. Homosexuality is one of those areas. There
>> >> >> are many others. This isn't news to anyone.
>> >> >
>> >> >There aren't many people who use the Bible as a foundation of what is
>> >> >right and wrong. There are many people who claim to, and who may
>> >> >honestly believe that they do, but an objective reading of the text
>> >> >reveals a system of morals to which no sane member of a modern society
>> >> >would subscribe.
>> >>
>> >> No, ZnU, what you as an atheist fail to realize is that there is the
>> >> Old Covenant and a New Covenant. Its a mistake many ignorant of
>> >> Christianity make. You can tell who these people are because they're
>> >> always waving around Mosaic Laws from the Old Testament around
>> >> claiming that people need to follow them in order to be good
>> >> Christians.
>> >
>> >I understand that many Christians choose to ignore parts of the OT which
>> >they find inconvenient, but there's only support in the text of the NT
>> >for some of that. It doesn't simply declare everything in the OT to be
>> >null and void.
>>
>> Hardly. Part of Christ's message was that people were getting the laws
>> wrong. This is illustrated by His question 'Was the Sabbath made for
>> man or was man made for the Sabbath?' in reply to accusations that He
>> wasn't following the directives to do absolutely nothing on the
>> Sabbath.
>> The Mosaic Laws were put in place for man's benefit not as something
>> to blindly follow.
>
>Once you start decide that it's all right to pay attention to some laws
>and ignore others, you can no longer use the Bible to support your
>position, because it doesn't support your interpretation over other
>interpretations.

That's ok, ZnU. You've already proved that you have a nearly total
ignorance on Christianity. There's no need to prove it further.
And in case you failed to notice, I never used the Bible to support my
position.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:16:20 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>In article <46phgv8f4okpul41t47ucfkapsteo14pjo[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Pardon me if I don't take my Bible lessons to seriously when there's
>>>> an atheist in the pulpit.
>
>>>This is a bit like the "Anyone who likes the Mac is technically
>>>incompetent and therefore isn't worth listening to" bit we see so often
>>>around here. It's nothing but a cheap way to dismiss arguments you don't
>>>like.
>
>>Hardly. Its a bit like if someone posted that 'Macs suck because they
>>can only display color on Tuesdays, if you point them due north their
>>HDs erase themselves and if you don't put a piece of tape over any
>>unused ports all your data will fall out.' How seriously would take
>>somone who posted that? That's right about the same level you and
>>ZnU's pronouncements on Christianity are at.
>
>I'd say it's on the same level as your "homosexuality is baaad cuz the
>bible says so" prattle.

Where do I say any such thing? I say homos are bad because they're
amoral wanton perverts. Its not straight people who have turned many
public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones. What's
with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
stupid to figure out the process?




--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <4fgogv837knvn6g6anhl669id2rdgmu88q[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:15:53 +0200, C Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> >>>>>> Pardon me if I don't take my Bible lessons to seriously when there's
> >>>>>> an atheist in the pulpit.
> >>>>>This is a bit like the "Anyone who likes the Mac is technically
> >>>>>incompetent and therefore isn't worth listening to" bit we see so often
> >>>>>around here. It's nothing but a cheap way to dismiss arguments you don't
> >>>>>like.
> >>>>Hardly. Its a bit like if someone posted that 'Macs suck because they
> >>>>can only display color on Tuesdays, if you point them due north their
> >>>>HDs erase themselves and if you don't put a piece of tape over any
> >>>>unused ports all your data will fall out.' How seriously would take
> >>>>somone who posted that? That's right about the same level you and
> >>>>ZnU's pronouncements on Christianity are at.
> >>>I'd say it's on the same level as your "homosexuality is baaad cuz the
> >>>bible says so" prattle.
> >>Where do I say any such thing? I say homos are bad because they're
> >>amoral wanton perverts.
> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?

We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are lies,
faux. You're a bigot and we both know that as well.

> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
> >Eh what?
> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George Michael
> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
> homo sex den.

Which proves what exactly?

> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.

So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.

> Type 'gay sex
> park restroom' into Google sometime.

Why? I'm not really into that stuff.

> >> What's
> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
> >>stupid to figure out the process?
> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
> It happen but its not common.

Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.

> It certainly never rises to the level
> that people start calling certain restrooms and parks the hetero sex
> restroom and the hetero sex park It is very common for homos to have
> sex in public parks and restrooms. I have no idea why. It probably has
> something to do with them being amoral wanton perverts.

Or perhaps you notice it all the time because it's all you think about.

--
C Lund

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:52:06 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]chello.no> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

>In article <4fgogv837knvn6g6anhl669id2rdgmu88q[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:15:53 +0200, C Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>> >>>>>> Pardon me if I don't take my Bible lessons to seriously when there's
>> >>>>>> an atheist in the pulpit.
>> >>>>>This is a bit like the "Anyone who likes the Mac is technically
>> >>>>>incompetent and therefore isn't worth listening to" bit we see so often
>> >>>>>around here. It's nothing but a cheap way to dismiss arguments you don't
>> >>>>>like.
>> >>>>Hardly. Its a bit like if someone posted that 'Macs suck because they
>> >>>>can only display color on Tuesdays, if you point them due north their
>> >>>>HDs erase themselves and if you don't put a piece of tape over any
>> >>>>unused ports all your data will fall out.' How seriously would take
>> >>>>somone who posted that? That's right about the same level you and
>> >>>>ZnU's pronouncements on Christianity are at.
>> >>>I'd say it's on the same level as your "homosexuality is baaad cuz the
>> >>>bible says so" prattle.
>> >>Where do I say any such thing? I say homos are bad because they're
>> >>amoral wanton perverts.
>> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
>> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
>> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
>
>We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are lies,
>faux.

Many others have told you the same thing after they view the
anti-Semite hate you spew at your website. That you stick your fingers
in your ears and scream doesn't make it not so. Youre a vile
anti-Semite. Your very words expose you as such.

> You're a bigot and we both know that as well.

You want to murder a whole religion because its your families', your
nation's and your continent's tradition. I want to move a people
because they are demonstrably dangerous and demonstrably not at all
interested in peace. You only think its bad because they wouldn't be
able to murder Jews in cold blood anymore which is what you live for.

>
>> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
>> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
>> >Eh what?
>> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George Michael
>> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
>> homo sex den.
>
>Which proves what exactly?

It wasn't the highest profile example of what I was talking about.
>
>> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
>> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.
>
>So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.

How stupid are you? Because homos infest a public park and turn it
into a sex den doesn't mean that any of the others are infected by any
other group.
>
>> Type 'gay sex
>> park restroom' into Google sometime.
>
>Why? I'm not really into that stuff.

So you could see how common this problem is.
>
>> >> What's
>> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
>> >>stupid to figure out the process?
>> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
>> It happen but its not common.
>
>Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.

It sounds to me like you're desperate to pretend that homos don't do
this kind of sicko stuff in vast numbers.
>
>> It certainly never rises to the level
>> that people start calling certain restrooms and parks the hetero sex
>> restroom and the hetero sex park It is very common for homos to have
>> sex in public parks and restrooms. I have no idea why. It probably has
>> something to do with them being amoral wanton perverts.
>
>Or perhaps you notice it all the time because it's all you think about.

Getting desperate, C? That's usually what the use if the 'You oppose
homos because you think you are one' line is a sign of. Type in the
terms I told you to in Google. You'll see several stories of police
running stings in parks in an attempt to clean them out after homos
make them unfit as a place to take children.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <fgnugv86b1c47qfmekj5evligrpr9ct223[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:52:06 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
> >> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
> >> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
> >> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
> >We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are lies,
> >faux.
> Many others have told you the same thing

"Many others" being that kneejerk ukkonen and a couple pro-Israelis.
Once again I'll remaind you that the previous time we went through this
I recieved zero accusations of anti-semitism (not counting yours) while
two others labeled you a racist - and rightly so, I might add.

> after they view the
> anti-Semite hate you spew at your website.

You have yet to dig up a single example of my "anti-semitism", faux.
I've challenged you to do so several timnes and each time you run away.

> That you stick your fingers
> in your ears and scream doesn't make it not so. Youre a vile
> anti-Semite. Your very words expose you as such.

And you're a liar.

> > You're a bigot and we both know that as well.
> You want to murder a whole religion

This is a lie.

> because its your families', your
> nation's and your continent's tradition.

This is a lie.

> I want to move a people
> because they are demonstrably dangerous and demonstrably not at all
> interested in peace.

This is a lie - and one used to justify ethnic cleansing.

>You only think its bad because they wouldn't be
> able to murder Jews in cold blood anymore

This is a lie.

> which is what you live for.

This is also a lie.

Five lies in one paragraph. Not bad, faux.

> >> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
> >> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
> >> >Eh what?
> >> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George Michael
> >> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
> >> homo sex den.
> >Which proves what exactly?
> It wasn't the highest profile example of what I was talking about.

Again, what does it prove?

> >> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
> >> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.
> >So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.
> How stupid are you? Because homos infest a public park and turn it
> into a sex den doesn't mean that any of the others are infected by any
> other group.

So don't go to that public park anymore then. There are others to choose
from, aren't there?

> >> Type 'gay sex
> >> park restroom' into Google sometime.
> >Why? I'm not really into that stuff.
> So you could see how common this problem is.

I doubt it's as common as you want it to be. In fact, I'm not convinced
it's a problem at all.

> >> >> What's
> >> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
> >> >>stupid to figure out the process?
> >> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
> >> It happen but its not common.
> >Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.
> It sounds to me like you're desperate to pretend that homos don't do
> this kind of sicko stuff in vast numbers.

Sounds to me you don't know that heteros do the same "sicko stuff" (sex
in public places is sicko??) in even vaster numbers.

> >> It certainly never rises to the level
> >> that people start calling certain restrooms and parks the hetero sex
> >> restroom and the hetero sex park It is very common for homos to have
> >> sex in public parks and restrooms. I have no idea why. It probably has
> >> something to do with them being amoral wanton perverts.
> >Or perhaps you notice it all the time because it's all you think about.
> Getting desperate, C?

Nope.

> That's usually what the use if the 'You oppose
> homos because you think you are one' line is a sign of.

That's not what I said, faux. You (and others of your faith) seem to
have an obsession with sexuality and especially homosexuality, which is
why you notice it all the time. That's not the same as saying you are
one.

> Type in the
> terms I told you to in Google. You'll see several stories of police
> running stings in parks in an attempt to clean them out after homos
> make them unfit as a place to take children.

--
C Lund

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:23:04 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>In article <fgnugv86b1c47qfmekj5evligrpr9ct223[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:52:06 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>> >> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
>> >> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
>> >> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
>> >We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are lies,
>> >faux.
>> Many others have told you the same thing
>
>"Many others" being that kneejerk ukkonen and a couple pro-Israelis.

This is what you always do. Every time someone points out to you that
you're an anti-Semite you dismiss them as part of the Jewish
Conspiracy. Its actually quite humorous.

>Once again I'll remaind you that the previous time we went through this
>I recieved zero accusations of anti-semitism (not counting yours) while
>two others labeled you a racist - and rightly so, I might add.

Two others with names I'd never seen before and the same ISP as you.
>
>> after they view the
>> anti-Semite hate you spew at your website.
>
>You have yet to dig up a single example of my "anti-semitism", faux.
>I've challenged you to do so several timnes and each time you run away.

I've pointed it ouit more than a few times myself and others have
ponted it out to you as well. You just keeop chanting 'It doesn't
count because you're all part of the Jewish Conspiracy'.

> That you stick your fingers
>> in your ears and scream doesn't make it not so. Youre a vile
>> anti-Semite. Your very words expose you as such.
>
>And you're a liar.

Its there for anyone to see.
>
>> > You're a bigot and we both know that as well.
>> You want to murder a whole religion
>
>This is a lie.

Your own words say otherwise.
>
>> because its your families', your
>> nation's and your continent's tradition.
>
>This is a lie.

Your own words and history say otherwise.
>
>> I want to move a people
>> because they are demonstrably dangerous and demonstrably not at all
>> interested in peace.
>
>This is a lie - and one used to justify ethnic cleansing.

A lie? The Israelis offered the Arabs everything they asked for at Wye
Rver. The result wasn't peace. It was a vicious wave of Islamikazes
that continues to this day. Any one who can look at the Arab's conduct
and come to the conclusion that they have even the slightest desire
for peace is a master at self-deception.


>
>>You only think its bad because they wouldn't be
>> able to murder Jews in cold blood anymore
>
>This is a lie.

Your own words show you to revel in the deaths of Jews.
>
>> which is what you live for.
>
>This is also a lie.

Your own words show otherwise.
>
>Five lies in one paragraph. Not bad, faux.
>
>> >> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
>> >> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
>> >> >Eh what?
>> >> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George Michael
>> >> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
>> >> homo sex den.
>> >Which proves what exactly?
>> It wasn't the highest profile example of what I was talking about.
>
>Again, what does it prove?

Apparently it proves that you don't read the newspaper.
>
>> >> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
>> >> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.
>> >So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.
>> How stupid are you? Because homos infest a public park and turn it
>> into a sex den doesn't mean that any of the others are infected by any
>> other group.
>
>So don't go to that public park anymore then. There are others to choose
>from, aren't there?

So we just abandon any attempts at maintaining decency in the public
sphere if enough homos want to do otherwise? What a great idea! Does
this extend to other areas as well? If enough people take a shit on
the sidewalk should we just tell people to walk in the street if they
don't like it?

>> >> Type 'gay sex
>> >> park restroom' into Google sometime.
>> >Why? I'm not really into that stuff.
>> So you could see how common this problem is.
>
>I doubt it's as common as you want it to be. In fact, I'm not convinced
>it's a problem at all.

Like I said do the search. You'll see just how common it is.
>
>> >> >> What's
>> >> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
>> >> >>stupid to figure out the process?
>> >> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
>> >> It happen but its not common.
>> >Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.
>> It sounds to me like you're desperate to pretend that homos don't do
>> this kind of sicko stuff in vast numbers.
>
>Sounds to me you don't know that heteros do the same "sicko stuff" (sex
>in public places is sicko??) in even vaster numbers.

Its funny how no park I've heard of has been taken over by straight
people to use as a sex den then.

>
>> >> It certainly never rises to the level
>> >> that people start calling certain restrooms and parks the hetero sex
>> >> restroom and the hetero sex park It is very common for homos to have
>> >> sex in public parks and restrooms. I have no idea why. It probably has
>> >> something to do with them being amoral wanton perverts.
>> >Or perhaps you notice it all the time because it's all you think about.
>> Getting desperate, C?
>
>Nope.
>
>> That's usually what the use if the 'You oppose
>> homos because you think you are one' line is a sign of.
>
>That's not what I said, faux.

You certainly implied it. Its a common argument the homos use as an
attempt to shut down the argument.

>You (and others of your faith) seem to
>have an obsession with sexuality and especially homosexuality, which is
>why you notice it all the time. That's not the same as saying you are
>one.

So now trying to maintain a bit of decency in public is being
obsessive? Of course it never occurs to you that if they just got a
hotel room like most horny people no one would ever notice them. But
then again you want to have sex with dogs so maybe you're not exactly
one to take seriously when it comes to decency.
>

>> Type in the
>> terms I told you to in Google. You'll see several stories of police
>> running stings in parks in an attempt to clean them out after homos
>> make them unfit as a place to take children.

--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <bqkvgvcl6he720obbf3rte936jh2f17889[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:23:04 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> >> >> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
> >> >> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
> >> >> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
> >> >We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are lies,
> >> >faux.
> >> Many others have told you the same thing
> >"Many others" being that kneejerk ukkonen and a couple pro-Israelis.
> This is what you always do. Every time someone points out to you that
> you're an anti-Semite you dismiss them as part of the Jewish
> Conspiracy. Its actually quite humorous.

faux, the people who denounce me as an anti-semite are invariably
right-wing Xtians (like yourself), people who hate muslims (like
yourself), and right-wing Jews. Most of these are posting from the US,
which now is the only nation still friendly to Israel - and even that
may change if Sharon decides to scuttle bush's roadmap (which he has
already tried to do several times now).

Further, neither you nor the handful of others who think I'm an
anti-semite have been able to point out exactly why I'm an anti-semite.
All you do is point to that flag and make some vague/feeble comments
about my website.

You can shove your conspiracy strawman where the sun doesn't shine.

> >Once again I'll remaind you that the previous time we went through this
> >I recieved zero accusations of anti-semitism (not counting yours) while
> >two others labeled you a racist - and rightly so, I might add.
> Two others with names I'd never seen before and the same ISP as you.

Are you implying that that I made those posts? That's weak, faux, even
by your standards.

Those others were X-posted from other forums. I did some googling and
found two guys who were both posting from darwin.ediacara.org. Is that
my ISP, faux?

> >> after they view the
> >> anti-Semite hate you spew at your website.
> >You have yet to dig up a single example of my "anti-semitism", faux.
> >I've challenged you to do so several timnes and each time you run away.
>
> I've pointed it ouit more than a few times myself

You've made several vague gestures at my website, faux. You have *never*
been able to point out anything specific. And no, that flag - while
offencive to many - is not anti-semitic.

You once said you were going to take my website apart line by line. When
are you actually going to do that, faux?

> and others have
> ponted it out to you as well.

Examples?

> You just keeop chanting 'It doesn't
> count because you're all part of the Jewish Conspiracy'.

Strawman.

> > That you stick your fingers
> >> in your ears and scream doesn't make it not so. Youre a vile
> >> anti-Semite. Your very words expose you as such.
> >And you're a liar.
> Its there for anyone to see.

Yes, everybody can see that you'rte a liar.

> >> > You're a bigot and we both know that as well.
> >> You want to murder a whole religion
> >This is a lie.
> Your own words say otherwise.

Which words? Give me a quote.

> >> because its your families', your
> >> nation's and your continent's tradition.
> >This is a lie.
> Your own words

Which words? Give me a quote.

> and history say otherwise.

Which history? Give me some references.

> >> I want to move a people
> >> because they are demonstrably dangerous and demonstrably not at all
> >> interested in peace.
> >This is a lie - and one used to justify ethnic cleansing.
> A lie?

Yes.

> The Israelis offered the Arabs everything they asked for at Wye
> Rver.

That simply isn't true.

> The result wasn't peace. It was a vicious wave of Islamikazes
> that continues to this day. Any one who can look at the Arab's conduct
> and come to the conclusion that they have even the slightest desire
> for peace is a master at self-deception.

I see you still, *still*, believe the Camp David Myth:

"Only rarely does the New York Times devote half its front page and two
full pages inside its international news section to a historic
description and analysis of events that don't have immediate news value.
A week ago, Deborah Sontag published a special report called "Quest for
Mideast Peace: How and Why It Failed." Its conclusion: "Many now agree
that all the sides, and not just Arafat, were to blame."

In the New York Review of Books, in an article due to appear next week,
Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, who were involved in the negotiations at
Camp David, reach the same conclusion, backed by eyewitness testimony by
several of the participants.

Ostensibly, Sontag's detailed, balanced and unprejudiced report in the
prestigious newspaper should have been thought-provoking and won
accolades. But it never had a chance. It was perceived as anti-Israeli
because, in Sontag's own words, it dared challenge the "potent,
simplistic narrative that has taken hold in Israel and to some extent in
the United States. It says: Mr. Barak offered Mr. Arafat the moon at
Camp David last summer. Mr. Arafat turned it down, and then `pushed the
button' and chose the path of violence."

That narrative is immune to fact or proof because it has become a myth
in the service of a cause and like all myths, once it has caught on, it
becomes more real than reality itself. Israeli society needs the myth,
because it is unifying and justifies all actions, clears the conscience,
defines the enemy as bloodthirsty and allows society to cope with the
tough reality of "no alternative." "

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Camp%20David%20Myth/challenging_the_myth.
htm

> >>You only think its bad because they wouldn't be
> >> able to murder Jews in cold blood anymore
> >This is a lie.
> Your own words show you to revel in the deaths of Jews.

Which words? Give me a quote.

> >> which is what you live for.
> >This is also a lie.
> Your own words show otherwise.

Which words? Give me a quote.

> >Five lies in one paragraph. Not bad, faux.

And predictably followed up by vague gestures at some never-quoted
"words"...

> >> >> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
> >> >> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
> >> >> >Eh what?
> >> >> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George Michael
> >> >> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
> >> >> homo sex den.
> >> >Which proves what exactly?
> >> It wasn't the highest profile example of what I was talking about.
> >Again, what does it prove?
> Apparently it proves that you don't read the newspaper.

It proves that I do not read newspapers obsessed with homosexuality.

> >> >> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
> >> >> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.
> >> >So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.
> >> How stupid are you? Because homos infest a public park and turn it
> >> into a sex den doesn't mean that any of the others are infected by any
> >> other group.
> >So don't go to that public park anymore then. There are others to choose
> >from, aren't there?
> So we just abandon any attempts at maintaining decency in the public
> sphere if enough homos want to do otherwise? What a great idea! Does
> this extend to other areas as well? If enough people take a shit on
> the sidewalk should we just tell people to walk in the street if they
> don't like it?

Taking a dump in public places is unhygenic. Having sex in some dark
corner (or behind a bush) isn't - even though it may offend the
occasional prude.

> >> >> Type 'gay sex
> >> >> park restroom' into Google sometime.
> >> >Why? I'm not really into that stuff.
> >> So you could see how common this problem is.
> >I doubt it's as common as you want it to be. In fact, I'm not convinced
> >it's a problem at all.
> Like I said do the search. You'll see just how common it is.

Sex is common, faux. Deal with it.

> >> >> >> What's
> >> >> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
> >> >> >>stupid to figure out the process?
> >> >> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
> >> >> It happen but its not common.
> >> >Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.
> >> It sounds to me like you're desperate to pretend that homos don't do
> >> this kind of sicko stuff in vast numbers.
> >Sounds to me you don't know that heteros do the same "sicko stuff" (sex
> >in public places is sicko??) in even vaster numbers.
> Its funny how no park I've heard of has been taken over by straight
> people to use as a sex den then.

That's because you fundies are more worried about gay sex. I've seen
heterosexual couples have sex in public places. The most I've seen gay
men do in public is kiss.

Mind you, this might be because the gay scene in Norway is completely
different from that in the US.

--
C Lund

Christopher Lund wrote in
<christopher.lund-8F3098.08533513072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>:

>That's because you fundies are more worried about gay sex. I've seen
>heterosexual couples have sex in public places. The most I've seen gay
>men do in public is kiss.

This conjures a very funny image of C Lund roaming the streets looking
for couples having sex, and then standing there watching them. Well I
guess everyone needs a hobby.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:53:35 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>In article <bqkvgvcl6he720obbf3rte936jh2f17889[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:23:04 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>> >> >> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
>> >> >> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
>> >> >> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
>> >> >We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are lies,
>> >> >faux.
>> >> Many others have told you the same thing
>> >"Many others" being that kneejerk ukkonen and a couple pro-Israelis.
>> This is what you always do. Every time someone points out to you that
>> you're an anti-Semite you dismiss them as part of the Jewish
>> Conspiracy. Its actually quite humorous.
>
>faux, the people who denounce me as an anti-semite are invariably
>right-wing Xtians (like yourself), people who hate muslims (like
>yourself), and right-wing Jews.

This is what you always do, anti-Semitic dog fucker. Anybody who
points out your obvious anti-Semitism you dismiss as part of the
Jewish Conspiracy.

> Most of these are posting from the US,

Most of everybody posting is from the US.

>which now is the only nation still friendly to Israel

Hardly true. While Europe is exploring its anti-Semitic heritage,
which is frighteningly extensive, other nations are not quite so full
of hate as your typical European nation.

>- and even that may change if Sharon decides to scuttle bush's roadmap (which he has
>already tried to do several times now).

You are of course referring to Israel's self-defense in the face of
continued Arab attacks. Israel never gave that up. If anyone is going
to scuttle this chance at peace its the Palestinian savages who have
never wanted peace anyway. Much like you, their idea of nirvana is
evey Jew in the world being dead.

>Further, neither you nor the handful of others who think I'm an
>anti-semite have been able to point out exactly why I'm an anti-semite.
>All you do is point to that flag and make some vague/feeble comments
>about my website.

Only an anti-Semite would proudly wave that emblem much less put it on
an Israeli flag. That you don't recognize the anti-Semitic nature of
the ramblings on your website only serves to show how strong you
believe in the 'cause'.

>
>You can shove your conspiracy strawman where the sun doesn't shine.

Ahhh, is poor, wittle Lund all upset?

>
>> >Once again I'll remaind you that the previous time we went through this
>> >I recieved zero accusations of anti-semitism (not counting yours) while
>> >two others labeled you a racist - and rightly so, I might add.
>> Two others with names I'd never seen before and the same ISP as you.
>
>Are you implying that that I made those posts? That's weak, faux, even
>by your standards.

I thought it was pretty weak of you as well.

>Those others were X-posted from other forums. I did some googling and
>found two guys who were both posting from darwin.ediacara.org. Is that
>my ISP, faux?

The stunning amount of evidence that you present is overwhelming.

>> >> after they view the
>> >> anti-Semite hate you spew at your website.
>> >You have yet to dig up a single example of my "anti-semitism", faux.
>> >I've challenged you to do so several timnes and each time you run away.
>>
>> I've pointed it ouit more than a few times myself
>
>You've made several vague gestures at my website, faux.

The whole thing reads like a speech from a Nuremburg Rally.

> You have *never*
>been able to point out anything specific. And no, that flag - while
>offencive to many - is not anti-semitic.

Of course it isn't.
>
>You once said you were going to take my website apart line by line. When
>are you actually going to do that, faux?

We've been over this anti-Semitic dog fucker. There's no need to do
the line by line thing. Anyone who reads that bit of hate you have up
and doesn't think that you're an anti-Semite is either hopelessly dim
or, like you, sees nothing wrong with that brand of hate.

>> and others have
>> ponted it out to you as well.
>
>Examples?

You acknowledge it earlier in the post.

>> You just keeop chanting 'It doesn't
>> count because you're all part of the Jewish Conspiracy'.
>
>Strawman.

Hardly. Its your standard reply to your hatred being pointed out for
what it is.

>
>> > That you stick your fingers
>> >> in your ears and scream doesn't make it not so. Youre a vile
>> >> anti-Semite. Your very words expose you as such.
>> >And you're a liar.
>> Its there for anyone to see.
>
>Yes, everybody can see that you'rte a liar.

Everyone who's been to your website comes away thinking the same thing
I do.

>
>> >> > You're a bigot and we both know that as well.
>> >> You want to murder a whole religion
>> >This is a lie.
>> Your own words say otherwise.
>
>Which words? Give me a quote.

Can't you read what you wrote?

>
>> >> because its your families', your
>> >> nation's and your continent's tradition.
>> >This is a lie.
>> Your own words
>
>Which words? Give me a quote.

Can't you read what you wrote?
>
>> and history say otherwise.
>
>Which history? Give me some references.

Its the real history. The one you refuse to acknowledge.
>
>> >> I want to move a people
>> >> because they are demonstrably dangerous and demonstrably not at all
>> >> interested in peace.
>> >This is a lie - and one used to justify ethnic cleansing.
>> A lie?
>
>Yes.

No its the truth.

"The killing of Jews is a mandatory religious obligation established
by Islam's founder Muhammad, according to a Muslim academic who spoke
on Palestinian Authority television."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33569
>
>> The Israelis offered the Arabs everything they asked for at Wye
>> Rver.
>
>That simply isn't true.

Its 100% true. You can keep on recycling all the PA's lies all you
want. They're still lies and everyone who isn't a stooge for Arrafat
knows it.
>
>> The result wasn't peace. It was a vicious wave of Islamikazes
>> that continues to this day. Any one who can look at the Arab's conduct
>> and come to the conclusion that they have even the slightest desire
>> for peace is a master at self-deception.
>
>I see you still, *still*, believe the Camp David Myth:
[Snip quote from URL]

>http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Camp%20David%20Myth/challenging_the_myth.
>htm

This is your 'proof'? A link to an article from an author who is
routinely laughed at as living in a alternative universe so biased and
pro-Arab are her articles? And its on a PA website.and its in a
newspaper that is thoroughly discredited. Anyone with sense realizes
that anything in the New York Times is made up. What's the matter?
Wasn't a quote from Arafat available as 'proof'?
Hey I've got one!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1058011614660
"A people that has the likes of Fares Odeh and other children martyrs
will not die." - Yasser Arafat
That's right. Arafat says that so long as the Arabs have kids to send
out to die in cowardly Islamikaze attacks they'll never die as a
people. Nope, no psychotic death cult aspects to that are there?
Of course he fails to address how they're going to survive as a people
if they send the next generation out to die. Maybe he's been inspired
by those Doritos commercials. Crunch all you want. We'll make more.

>> >>You only think its bad because they wouldn't be
>> >> able to murder Jews in cold blood anymore
>> >This is a lie.
>> Your own words show you to revel in the deaths of Jews.
>
>Which words? Give me a quote.

Can't you read what you wrote?
>
>> >> which is what you live for.
>> >This is also a lie.
>> Your own words show otherwise.
>
>Which words? Give me a quote.

Can't you read what you wrote?
>
>> >Five lies in one paragraph. Not bad, faux.
>
>And predictably followed up by vague gestures at some never-quoted
>"words"...

Its your website. Don't you know how to get to it?

>> >> >> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
>> >> >> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
>> >> >> >Eh what?
>> >> >> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George Michael
>> >> >> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
>> >> >> homo sex den.
>> >> >Which proves what exactly?
>> >> It wasn't the highest profile example of what I was talking about.
>> >Again, what does it prove?
>> Apparently it proves that you don't read the newspaper.
>
>It proves that I do not read newspapers obsessed with homosexuality.

So now reporting on homos public activities make one 'obsessed'?
>
>> >> >> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
>> >> >> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.
>> >> >So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.
>> >> How stupid are you? Because homos infest a public park and turn it
>> >> into a sex den doesn't mean that any of the others are infected by any
>> >> other group.
>> >So don't go to that public park anymore then. There are others to choose
>> >from, aren't there?
>> So we just abandon any attempts at maintaining decency in the public
>> sphere if enough homos want to do otherwise? What a great idea! Does
>> this extend to other areas as well? If enough people take a shit on
>> the sidewalk should we just tell people to walk in the street if they
>> don't like it?
>
>Taking a dump in public places is unhygenic.

And depositing other bodily fluids in public isn't?

>Having sex in some dark corner (or behind a bush) isn't - even though it may offend the
>occasional prude.

So you think its prudish to object to homos having sex in a park where
children are playing? Your lack of any semblence of morality is
becoming more and more entertaining. Would you object to a group of
strangers walking into your house and having a gang bang on your
couch while you're trying to watch tv?

>
>> >> >> Type 'gay sex
>> >> >> park restroom' into Google sometime.
>> >> >Why? I'm not really into that stuff.
>> >> So you could see how common this problem is.
>> >I doubt it's as common as you want it to be. In fact, I'm not convinced
>> >it's a problem at all.
>> Like I said do the search. You'll see just how common it is.
>
>Sex is common, faux. Deal with it.

Strawman.
The issue is homos taking over public parks and performing sex acts on
each other in places where children are playing.

>> >> >> >> What's
>> >> >> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they too
>> >> >> >>stupid to figure out the process?
>> >> >> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
>> >> >> It happen but its not common.
>> >> >Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.
>> >> It sounds to me like you're desperate to pretend that homos don't do
>> >> this kind of sicko stuff in vast numbers.
>> >Sounds to me you don't know that heteros do the same "sicko stuff" (sex
>> >in public places is sicko??) in even vaster numbers.
>> Its funny how no park I've heard of has been taken over by straight
>> people to use as a sex den then.
>
>That's because you fundies are more worried about gay sex. I've seen
>heterosexual couples have sex in public places. The most I've seen gay
>men do in public is kiss.

So all the people who file complaints about this are lying? All the
police officers who go out and arrest these scumbags are lying? Is
everyone but you lying?

>Mind you, this might be because the gay scene in Norway is completely
>different from that in the US.

You claim to have to the US many times. Why don't you detail it in
both places for us.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <bei8hv0mmus2ar6sgllelj0l39tmrmd2r6[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:53:35 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
>
> >In article <bqkvgvcl6he720obbf3rte936jh2f17889[at]4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:23:04 +0200, Christopher Lund
> >> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> >> following wisdom:
> >> >> >> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
> >> >> >> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
> >> >> >> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
> >> >> >We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are
> >> >> >lies,
> >> >> >faux.
> >> >> Many others have told you the same thing
> >> >"Many others" being that kneejerk ukkonen and a couple pro-Israelis.
> >> This is what you always do. Every time someone points out to you that
> >> you're an anti-Semite you dismiss them as part of the Jewish
> >> Conspiracy. Its actually quite humorous.
> >
> >faux, the people who denounce me as an anti-semite are invariably
> >right-wing Xtians (like yourself), people who hate muslims (like
> >yourself), and right-wing Jews.
>
> This is what you always do, anti-Semitic dog fucker. Anybody who
> points out your obvious anti-Semitism you dismiss as part of the
> Jewish Conspiracy.
>
> > Most of these are posting from the US,
>
> Most of everybody posting is from the US.
>
> >which now is the only nation still friendly to Israel
>
> Hardly true. While Europe is exploring its anti-Semitic heritage,
> which is frighteningly extensive, other nations are not quite so full
> of hate as your typical European nation.

Mr. Mayor, just to introduce a little thought provocation into this
discussion: Have you ever researched WHY Europe has such a long history
of anti-semitism? If you really looked into it, you would see a pattern
that would be repeated here in the USA except for the fact that in this
country, Jews manufacture public opinion instead of being at the mercy
of it as they were throughout European history. DO THE RESEARCH.

--
George Graves

In article <bei8hv0mmus2ar6sgllelj0l39tmrmd2r6[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:53:35 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> >> >> >> >Oh, my bad. You're just a gay-bashing bigot and you're proud of it.
> >> >> >> I ask again under what circumstances does a swastika waving
> >> >> >> anti-Semite have standing to call anyone a bigot?
> >> >> >We both know by now your repeated accusations of anti-semitism are
> >> >> >lies,
> >> >> >faux.
> >> >> Many others have told you the same thing
> >> >"Many others" being that kneejerk ukkonen and a couple pro-Israelis.
> >> This is what you always do. Every time someone points out to you that
> >> you're an anti-Semite you dismiss them as part of the Jewish
> >> Conspiracy. Its actually quite humorous.
> >faux, the people who denounce me as an anti-semite are invariably
> >right-wing Xtians (like yourself), people who hate muslims (like
> >yourself), and right-wing Jews.
> This is what you always do, anti-Semitic dog fucker. Anybody who
> points out your obvious anti-Semitism you dismiss as part of the
> Jewish Conspiracy.

There is no "jewish conspiracy", faux. There's just the pro-Israel
lobby, which consists mainly of useful idiots like yourself.

And if my anti-semitism is so obvious, why are you so completely
incapable of providing a single quote that demonstrates it?

> > Most of these are posting from the US,
> Most of everybody posting is from the US.

Or from Australia, Canada, Europe, or other parts of the world.

> >which now is the only nation still friendly to Israel
> Hardly true. While Europe is exploring its anti-Semitic heritage,
> which is frighteningly extensive, other nations are not quite so full
> of hate as your typical European nation.

Do you really have to fill the gaps in your knowledge with lies?

> >- and even that may change if Sharon decides to scuttle bush's roadmap
> >(which he has
> >already tried to do several times now).

> You are of course referring to Israel's self-defense in the face of
> continued Arab attacks.

You mean his repeated attempts at provoking suicide bombings by lobbong
rockets at *suspected* terrorists? Bombs that tend to kill civilians
rather than their intended targets?

> Israel never gave that up. If anyone is going
> to scuttle this chance at peace its the Palestinian savages who have

And here we see your racism again...

> never wanted peace anyway. Much like you, their idea of nirvana is
> evey Jew in the world being dead.

More lies/strawmen.

> >Further, neither you nor the handful of others who think I'm an
> >anti-semite have been able to point out exactly why I'm an anti-semite.
> >All you do is point to that flag and make some vague/feeble comments
> >about my website.
> Only an anti-Semite would proudly wave that emblem much less put it on
> an Israeli flag.

I see you *still* haven't grasped the meaning of the word "context".

> That you don't recognize the anti-Semitic nature of
> the ramblings on your website only serves to show how strong you
> believe in the 'cause'.

What I see is that you still haven't managed to point out what's
anti-semitic about them.

Or are you saying that criticizing Israel is in itself anti-semitic?

> >You can shove your conspiracy strawman where the sun doesn't shine.
> Ahhh, is poor, wittle Lund all upset?

Not really.

> >> >Once again I'll remaind you that the previous time we went through this
> >> >I recieved zero accusations of anti-semitism (not counting yours) while
> >> >two others labeled you a racist - and rightly so, I might add.
> >> Two others with names I'd never seen before and the same ISP as you.
> >Are you implying that that I made those posts? That's weak, faux, even
> >by your standards.
> I thought it was pretty weak of you as well.

So are you implying that those posts were mine or not?

> >Those others were X-posted from other forums. I did some googling and
> >found two guys who were both posting from darwin.ediacara.org. Is that
> >my ISP, faux?
> The stunning amount of evidence that you present is overwhelming.

So were those posts mine or not?

> >> >> after they view the
> >> >> anti-Semite hate you spew at your website.
> >> >You have yet to dig up a single example of my "anti-semitism", faux.
> >> >I've challenged you to do so several timnes and each time you run away.
> >> I've pointed it ouit more than a few times myself
> >You've made several vague gestures at my website, faux.
> The whole thing reads like a speech from a Nuremburg Rally.

More vague hand-wavings. Give me something specific, faux.

> >You once said you were going to take my website apart line by line. When
> >are you actually going to do that, faux?
> We've been over this anti-Semitic dog fucker. There's no need to do
> the line by line thing.

That's because you *can't*, faux.

> Anyone who reads that bit of hate you have up
> and doesn't think that you're an anti-Semite is either hopelessly dim
> or, like you, sees nothing wrong with that brand of hate.

Your lack of examples and quotes show how empty you accusations are.

> >> and others have
> >> ponted it out to you as well.
> >Examples?
> You acknowledge it earlier in the post.

Quote, please.

> >> You just keeop chanting 'It doesn't
> >> count because you're all part of the Jewish Conspiracy'.
> >Strawman.
> Hardly. Its your standard reply to your hatred being pointed out for
> what it is.

No, it's the strawman you keep putting up because you don'1t have any
actual arguments. You're just spouting your usual racist hatred.

> >> > That you stick your fingers
> >> >> in your ears and scream doesn't make it not so. Youre a vile
> >> >> anti-Semite. Your very words expose you as such.
> >> >And you're a liar.
> >> Its there for anyone to see.
> >Yes, everybody can see that you'rte a liar.
> Everyone who's been to your website comes away thinking the same thing
> I do.

Or so you want to believe.

> >> >> > You're a bigot and we both know that as well.
> >> >> You want to murder a whole religion
> >> >This is a lie.
> >> Your own words say otherwise.
> >Which words? Give me a quote.
> Can't you read what you wrote?

Yes I can. What I can't see is what you said I wrote - because you made
that up. You're lying again, iow.

(same thing repeated and snipped several times)

> >> and history say otherwise.
> >Which history? Give me some references.
> Its the real history. The one you refuse to acknowledge.

Your non-reply/evasion is noted.

> >> >> I want to move a people
> >> >> because they are demonstrably dangerous and demonstrably not at all
> >> >> interested in peace.
> >> >This is a lie - and one used to justify ethnic cleansing.
> >> A lie?
> >Yes.
> No its the truth.

No, it is a lie.

> "The killing of Jews is a mandatory religious obligation established
> by Islam's founder Muhammad, according to a Muslim academic who spoke
> on Palestinian Authority television."

> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33569

This is a reaction to the Israeli behaviour, faux. It's not unlike the
way Norwegians felt about the nazis during wwii.

> >> The Israelis offered the Arabs everything they asked for at Wye
> >> Rver.
> >That simply isn't true.
> Its 100% true. You can keep on recycling all the PA's lies all you
> want. They're still lies and everyone who isn't a stooge for Arrafat
> knows it.

The stooge is you, faux.

> >> The result wasn't peace. It was a vicious wave of Islamikazes
> >> that continues to this day. Any one who can look at the Arab's conduct
> >> and come to the conclusion that they have even the slightest desire
> >> for peace is a master at self-deception.
> >I see you still, *still*, believe the Camp David Myth:
> [Snip quote from URL]

> >http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Camp%20David%20Myth/challenging_the_myth.
> >htm

> This is your 'proof'? A link to an article from an author who is
> routinely laughed at as living in a alternative universe so biased and
> pro-Arab are her articles?

That was simply the first article I got. Do a google on "camp david
myth" and you'll find *tons* of material on the subject.

But since you (predictably) decided to ignore that article because of
it's source, maybe you'll find Robert Malley - one of the US negotiators
a bit more credible/harder to ignore/dismiss:

"I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I,
too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians'
passivity and inability to seize the moment. But there is no purpose --
and considerable harm -- in adding to their real mistakes a list of
fictional ones. Here are the most dangerous myths about the Camp David
summit."

http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/aip/Class%20materials/070801MALLeyReCampD
avid.html

I'm sure you'll think of an exuse to ignore this as well, cross-burner.

> >> >Five lies in one paragraph. Not bad, faux.
> >And predictably followed up by vague gestures at some never-quoted
> >"words"...
> Its your website. Don't you know how to get to it?

Yes I do. And there is no anti-semitism there. If there is you'll have
to point it out ot me.

> >> >> >> >> Its not straight people who have turned many
> >> >> >> >>public parks and restrooms into enter at your own risk zones.
> >> >> >> >Eh what?
> >> >> >> Please! You didn't know that homos infest these areas? George
> >> >> >> Michael
> >> >> >> was arrested for soliciting in a public restroom that was known as a
> >> >> >> homo sex den.
> >> >> >Which proves what exactly?
> >> >> It wasn't the highest profile example of what I was talking about.
> >> >Again, what does it prove?
> >> Apparently it proves that you don't read the newspaper.
> >It proves that I do not read newspapers obsessed with homosexuality.
> So now reporting on homos public activities make one 'obsessed'?

Let's just say you're more interested in the subject than would be
concidered normal.

> >> >> >> Surely that made the papers in Norway. Many cities have
> >> >> >> at least one park that's known as the homo sex park.
> >> >> >So then the others are "hetero sex parks" then. BFD.
> >> >> How stupid are you? Because homos infest a public park and turn it
> >> >> into a sex den doesn't mean that any of the others are infected by any
> >> >> other group.
> >> >So don't go to that public park anymore then. There are others to choose
> >> >from, aren't there?
> >> So we just abandon any attempts at maintaining decency in the public
> >> sphere if enough homos want to do otherwise? What a great idea! Does
> >> this extend to other areas as well? If enough people take a shit on
> >> the sidewalk should we just tell people to walk in the street if they
> >> don't like it?
> >Taking a dump in public places is unhygenic.
> And depositing other bodily fluids in public isn't?

Sure it is. What does that have to do with it?

> >Having sex in some dark corner (or behind a bush) isn't - even though it may
> >offend the
> >occasional prude.
> So you think its prudish to object to homos having sex in a park where
> children are playing?

I don't see you complaining about heteros doing the same...

> Your lack of any semblence of morality is
> becoming more and more entertaining. Would you object to a group of
> strangers walking into your house and having a gang bang on your
> couch while you're trying to watch tv?

Please...

> >> >> >> Type 'gay sex
> >> >> >> park restroom' into Google sometime.
> >> >> >Why? I'm not really into that stuff.
> >> >> So you could see how common this problem is.
> >> >I doubt it's as common as you want it to be. In fact, I'm not convinced
> >> >it's a problem at all.
> >> Like I said do the search. You'll see just how common it is.
> >Sex is common, faux. Deal with it.
> Strawman.
> The issue is homos taking over public parks and performing sex acts on
> each other in places where children are playing.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you.

> >> >> >> >> What's
> >> >> >> >>with these guys? Can they just not afford a hotel room or are they
> >> >> >> >>too
> >> >> >> >>stupid to figure out the process?
> >> >> >> >So you're saying heterosexuals never have sex in public places?
> >> >> >> It happen but its not common.
> >> >> >Sounds to me like you're tuned in to only see homosexuals.
> >> >> It sounds to me like you're desperate to pretend that homos don't do
> >> >> this kind of sicko stuff in vast numbers.
> >> >Sounds to me you don't know that heteros do the same "sicko stuff" (sex
> >> >in public places is sicko??) in even vaster numbers.
> >> Its funny how no park I've heard of has been taken over by straight
> >> people to use as a sex den then.
> >That's because you fundies are more worried about gay sex. I've seen
> >heterosexual couples have sex in public places. The most I've seen gay
> >men do in public is kiss.
> So all the people who file complaints about this are lying?

No. They're just prudes like yourself.

> All the
> police officers who go out and arrest these scumbags are lying?

What scumbags?

> Is everyone but you lying?

Burned any good crosses lately?

> >Mind you, this might be because the gay scene in Norway is completely
> >different from that in the US.
> You claim to have to the US many times. Why don't you detail it in
> both places for us.

If you want to know about the gay scenes go try them out for yourself.
Personally I couldn't care less.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

In article
<gmgraves-3F3A23.13250415072003[at]newssvr22-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Hardly true. While Europe is exploring its anti-Semitic heritage,
> > which is frighteningly extensive, other nations are not quite so full
> > of hate as your typical European nation.
>
> Mr. Mayor, just to introduce a little thought provocation into this
> discussion: Have you ever researched WHY Europe has such a long history
> of anti-semitism?

Well, the reason is that Europe has a long history, period. Also,
anti-semitism appeared in Europe - thanks to the very religion faux
holds so dear to his heart.

> If you really looked into it, you would see a pattern
> that would be repeated here in the USA except for the fact that in this
> country, Jews manufacture public opinion instead of being at the mercy
> of it as they were throughout European history. DO THE RESEARCH.

*Jews* have not manufactured public opinion at all. This is a
zionist/Xtian thing and it didn't really appear until after wwii, when
the west was still reeling in shock from the holocaust. The zionists,
Xtians, and Israelis basically picked up the reins then.

Jews are just people - many of which are appalled at what Israel is
doing in their name.

> --
> George Graves

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund