Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: charles_casey_google_groups@yahoo.com (Charles C.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Position statement - Charles Casey's wife was no better thanaprostitute.
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:58:00 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 72
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ff22d5bc.0404102158.2c573846@posting.google.com>
References: <c58g9k$nck$0@pita.alt.net> <opfg709ojtjhhg6l3ebiened499kapaibo@4ax.com> <40789B87.7020604@7600.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1081663081 71885 128.100.83.246 (11 Apr 2004 05:58:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:58:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.82.165.230
X-Spam-Level: Level *
X-Spamscanner: mailbox5.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Mar 10 2004 15:18:19, 1.2/5.0 2.63)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 70602 i3B5wopH080652 mailbox5.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3203
Dissident <qqqq@7600.net> wrote in message news:<40789B87.7020604@7600.net>...
> Charles C. wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:54:01 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> > <noway@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he was
> >>well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on the
> >>street when he was unwell, then she was no better than a hooker, and the
> >>elders who enabled her to do it, they were like her pimps.
> >>
> >>And you can quote me on that.
> >>
> >>Uncle Davey
> >>
> >
> >
> > If my children read this post just how the hell do you think that they
> > will feel? This is the most thoughtless action you have ever taken. No
> > matter what she has done _*OUR*_ children do not deserve to read
> > statements like this one. I don't give a flying fuck how you attempt
> > to justify this you are one sick fucking troll with the brain capacity
> > equal to a pile of dog shit.
> >
> > You need help. There isn't a moral bone in your body. God damn I can't
> > believe how fucking low you can go. How the hell do you look at
> > yourself in the mirror? Get help you sick fuck.
>
> This is typical behavior for religious people. Rather than
> argue an issue on the merits, they hold up their children
> as a shield, make a special pleading based on that, and demand
> special rights. I've seen it a thousand times as a gay man.
> "We can't allow homosexuals to have legal relationships,
> because *children* might hear of their existence and then
> instantly convert to godless faggotry". I for one will continue
> to publicly air the merits of issues based on *all* claims,
> factual and otherwise, and let the chips fall where they
> may, and will not suppress, silence, or censor points of
> view because of what anyone's *children* may happen to hear.
>
> You are well within your rights to argue back against Davey
> on the basis that his accusations against you or your wife
> are unsupported by the facts, or that they are not factual
> at all, being rather ad hominem in nature. But to attempt to
> curtail discussion based on the likelihood that continuing
> it will embarass you in front of your children - well, that
> one could be used to good effect by all the religious creationists
> who have confidently taught their children the myth of Biblical
> inerrancy, and wish to suppress any public discussion to the
> contrary lest it lead to embarassment for them in front of
> their children.
>
> I am no Davey supporter, having seen him far too often
> on the other side of issues from myself, but I have a
> particular hot button when children are inserted into
> a discussion to curtail it, having seen this tactic
> used repeatedly by conservatives as a way of not having
> to make a substantive defense of issues where they have
> an unswayable emotional attachment to one way of thinking.
> That is why I react here.
>
> Saying that, I have to ask a practical question: do your
> children actually read talk.origins?
If you think that I am holding my children up as a shield in a fundie
type maneuver then you need to figure out just what is actually going
on here and why. I am not going to type 6 pages for every person that
sees this and feels like commenting on it. If you are that curious you
can take the time to figure it out. If the title of this thread in
talk.origins with Davey involved doesn't give you a clue then I am at
a loss for words.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 |
|