"Uncle Davey" wrote:
> "t_naismith" wrote:
> > "Uncle Davey" wrote:
> >
> > > I had a crack at answering this a few days ago, but I lost it ...
> >
> > If I were to extrapolate, you seem to have lost it far earlier
> > and in far more ways.
>
> I couldn't have lost it before you wrote it.
> That just, like, stands to reason.
>
What you've lost has less to do with posting and
more elusive than trolling arw is for you.
> > > ... and I hate
> > > redoing things, but at the same time I don't like leaving things
> > unanswered
> > > knowingly.
> > >
> > Well, hop back into the cauldron, missionary - there are
> > heads to be shrunken and hood ornaments to be made of
> > them.
>
> your experiments with an antidote to viagra overdose are nothing to me.
>
That's the best you can come up with, troll?
I've over-estimated you, Davey. My bad, man.
> > > So let's hope I don't lose it this time...
> > >
> > As I'd estimated, it's a bit late for that.
>
> well, since you answered it's proof it didn't get lost this time.
>
That whooshing sound you hear over your head is not
necessarily your helium-filled sex doll, Davey.
> > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > > "Uncle Davey" wrote:
> > > > > "t_naismith" wrote:
> > > > > > "Jason Gastritis" burped up this mess:
> > >
> > > <snippage of the old stuff which remains unrefuted>
> > >
> > > > > Your style is quite amusing, I have to admit, even though you're
> > > attacking
> > > > > my friend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure we want to evangelize you. There has been no attempt to hide
> the
> > > fact
> > > > > that we like to spread the Gospel.
> > > > >
> > > > Actually, your buddies Jason and Ariaane went to some
> > > > superficial lengths to deny that they were here in a.r.w. to
> > > > _evangelize_. So, who is lying, you or they?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I agree with you. I doubt they would have denied
> evangelizing
> > > when we are commanded to evangelise.
> > >
> > Their posts are archived. In their own words. Would you
> > like to reconsider your doubt?
>
> instead of me plowing through everything they wrote, could you kindly be a
> bit more specific.
>
Look at Jason's initial cross-post to a.r.w., then look at his denials
of evangelizing and finally, (Ariaan's initial denials of this as well), and
finally, check their subsequent admissions to doing so _after_ being
called on it. They lied. How can liars carry a message of truth?
> > > > > We nevertheless like to do it in a reasoned way, dealing with and
> > > reacting
> > > > > to the points of faith in other people's world views.
> > > > >
> > > > By and large, few if any here would wish to here your
> > > > evangelizing, no matter what form it takes.
> > >
> > >
> > > I can well imagine that.
> >
> > By your spin on it below, it would seem that you cannot
> > well imagine it, Davey.
> >
>
> You have no idea, Trevor. Do you imagine I was born a Christian?
>
I've seen hundreds very much like you in passing, Davey.
Are you merely telling me you are a so-called 'born-again'
xtian?
> > > "The carnal mind is enmity against God. It is not
> > > subject to the laws of God, nor indeed can it be"
> >
> > Cool! Too bad such pronouncements don't keep
> > the missionaries from the stewpots.
>
> I'm not a missionary, I'm an accountant.
Then how do you account for your participation in
missionary evangelizing here in a.r.w., Davey?
> I've got a missionary friend coming
> for dinner tonight, but we are ordering a pizza in, I assure you.
>
Not to _evangelize_ one another though, right?
> > > But if we only took the
> > > message to people who have already lost their carnal minds ...
> >
> > Are you suggesting that you've "lost your carnal mind(s)", or
> > merely your mind, Davey?
>
> We've lost our old minds ...
'Nuff said.
> >
> > I'm taking your run-on sentence apart because you've
> > previously conceded the excuse of English as a second
> > language, Davey.
>
> It's my first language.
> I never said it was anything other than that, Trevor.
Your concession was not explicit, it was implicit, Davey.
> Although I do speak mainly Russian at home and Polish and German at work.
>
>
> > At any rate, the suggestion that you lot
> > have " ... gained new minds ... " compares to some sort
> > of 'daemonic possession'. Are you taking your daemons
> > out for _exorcize_, Davey?
>
> do you think the bible calls the devil 'the prince of the power of the
> air....obics'?
>
You answered the question by not answering, Davey.
Puzzle over that.
> > > ... and had their stoney heart taken out and given a new heart ...
> >
> > I'm not sure that's what the Olmec, Aztec and others had in
> > mind before the xtians stole that idea, Davey.
>
> i'm not a fundie, by the way, just noticing your latest amusing munge in
the
> follow-ups
>
You're just a run-of-the mill 'born-again' one-wayist then?
Those aren't follow up munges, Davey. They are messages
to the underground resistance.
> > > ... then what
> > > sort of evangelists would we be???
> > >
> > As a good guess, I'd say very inept evangelists.
>
> That's what we would be, if we only preached to the converted.
>
... Or, charging panzers on horseback ...
> > > > > By propounding your views as we propounded ours, you had all the
> > chance
> > > to
> > > > > make converts of us, humanly speaking, as we had to make converts
of
> > > you.
> > > > >
> > > > Ah, therein lies a difference in paradigms, Davey. Most pagans
do
> > > > not wish to make "converts" of you lot and mainly would do as
they've
> > > > done; request that you cease and desist. These requests have ranged
> > > > from polite to more, shall we say, direct? All have been
disregarded
> by
> > > > you and your fellow missionaries.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not true. Ariaan has bid you farewell, Jason seems to be disengaging.
> > >
> > More accurately, Jason huffed off and whined in your NG while
> > Ariaan merely raised a white flag and buggered-off.
> > Regardless, evangelizing by other missionaries will be equally
> > ineffective. Yours included, Davey.
>
> Well, that's not up to you or me. Maybe you are right, maybe not.
>
I write only concerning my viewpoint, true. So, how many 'wiccans'
have you _converted_ thus far from a.r.w., Davey?
> > > > > I say 'humanly speaking', because all true conversion is only done
> by
> > > God
> > > > > anyway, and we only plant seeds, we don't make them germinate.
> > > > >
> > > > Then wheel your "g-d" in here and let 'im try, why does 'he' need
> > > > willing missionaries to do 'his' dirty work?
> > >
> > > Actually, He doesn't.
> >
Wheel him in, then. Not babble from some book where
you purport he 'speaks'. Do it now.
> > If you are sure of this theory, test it by ceasing to do
> > this dirty-work. Can you, is your 'faith' strong enough,
> > Davey?
>
> I have no difficulty at all in not evangelising. Being, by nature, a lazy
> bastard. It's the telling of the truth to people that don't appreciate it,
> that demands a bit of an effort.
>
I agree that you appear to be having some difficulty
lying well. It is probably due to that laziness you mentioned.
> I still certainly believe that God will surely call in his elect whether I
> am here or not.
>
If you feel that way, why not show some courage of your
convictions and let that happen instead of flailing on about
it here?
> > > But we are priveledged to be offered a small role in
> > > God's calling in His kingdom.
> > >
> > Uh-huh. As cannon fodder.
>
> No job too small.
>
So now you imagine yourself as a _martyr_, Davey?
> > > > > Nevertheless, it has disturbed some of my brethren, (not myself I
> have
> > > to
> > > > > say, as I am so wicked by nature I am past being shocked by
> anything),
> > > > that
> > > > > there has been a stream of blasphemy and crudity from some
> > participants,
> > > > and
> > > > > this wasn't what they had in mind when they came here.
> > > > >
> > > > The responses have been precisely-gauged to suit specific
> > > > instances.
> > > >
> > > > > You are saying you didn't want to be evangelised, and at the same
> time
> > > you
> > > > > are calling Jason chicken for announcing a retirement from the
> debate,
> > a
> > > > > sure fire way of making someone go the distance.
> > > > >
> > > > No, you fail to comprehend what was stated, Davey.
> > > > Jason was berated for starting a cross-posted incursion
> > > > into a.r.w. and then a 'brave exit speech' which equates
> > > > to buggering-off after he didn't like the response to this.
> > > > At no point in the past has he indicated that he is able to
> > > > participate in a "debate", (which is not demonstrated by
> > > > his various announced claims but, by participating in them).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, he is a very fine debater.
> >
> > No, he is/was not anything of the sort. Proclamations which
> > are contrary to his failure to demonstrate such a claim are empty.
> >
> > > If you disregard for one moment
> > > your distaste for his credo...
> >
> > It is he that cannot disregard it, momentarily or not.
> > Since such a "credo" of dogma is so irrevocably tied
> > in with his evangelistic agenda, actual "debate" remains
> > as elusive as what you guys put your blind faith into.
> >
>
> You may say that, but if you look you will see that there are debates on
> Usenet where he is making short work of some acclaimed skeptics.
>
I did post just that; based upon his extraordinarily-poor performance
in a.r.w. recently. The missionary ended up as stew, not the other
way around, Davey.
> {Jason, if you're reading this, where was that link to that debating
website
> again?}
>
Jason has posted that he has me kill-filed. So much for courage of
convictions, eh Davey?
> > > ... look at the website and assess the high quality
> > > of some of the debating in their. there are even publicised phone
> debates
> > he
> > > has had.
> > >
> > If he wants to _debate_, let him do so here. I'm not going
> > looking for his evangelizing nonsense elsewhere.
>
> Okay, it's really up to you.
>
I'm here. Where is he, cowering - in "free.xtians"?
> > > > > So I have a couple of questions for you:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Do you want us to stay or go? (Because you gave a mixed message
> > > above)
> > > > >
> > > > Stay if wished. Do not attempt to dictate posting parameters
> > > > to an unmoderated NG to which you lot are cross-posting _To_.
> > > > Additionally, whining about the nature of the replies received to
> > > > various nonsense you post merely makes you look petulant.
> > >
> > > Well, I haven't done it.
> >
> > Haven't done what; cross-posted here from your puddle or,
> > whined?
>
> I haven't complained about the lack of adherence to our groups charter by
> you when we initiated the cross posts.
Yet, did you not deny, at some point, that you were here
to _evangelize_?
> It seemed to me to lack logic, and I do try to be fair.
>
Evangelizing does lack logic but then, so does blind faith.
> > > Between you and me I'm not a great big fan of
> > > netiquette, actually.
> > >
> > In what way?
>
> <snips to chase>
>
> Etiquette is a question of manners, and
> certainly it is considered almost universally bad etiquette to evangelise
> anyone anywhere. If we get bogged down in various forms of etiquette we
will
> never get the job done.
>
Very pseudo-sophist of you, Davey. No sale.
Polite or not, etiquettes or not - I oppose your
evangelizing, (in case you haven't caught on yet).
In all its forms.
> > > > > 2. Are you aware of what the message is that we are preaching?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and there is no need for its repetition - by either you or I.
> > >
> > > Hmmmmmn.
> > >
> > > > > Could you put
> > > > > the Christian gospel in your own words for me, so that I can see
> > whether
> > > > you
> > > > > are rejecting what we are actually trying to say or only what you
> > think
> > > we
> > > > > are trying to say.
> > > > >
> > > > As I iterate above, there is no need. Your "message" is
> > > > summarily rejected by this poster. Is that clear enough, Davey?
> > >
> > > It's clear that when I asked you to summarise what our message was,
you
> > > didn't do it.
> >
> > No, you asked me whether I _could_ do it, (or not, implicitly).
> > I'm choosing not to do it in order to 'evangelize for you. You
> > aren't as subtle as you believe you are, Davey.
> >
> > > There's still a risk in my mind that you don't know what you're
> rejecting.
> > >
> > Assume I do know what and why and give it up. You are not
> > going to appear in a positive 'light' should you persist, Davey.
>
> Do I write like that bothers me greatly?
Excellent, Davey. What is written, many see and most of
it is not for your blinded eyes.
> I would have preferred you to have answered the question, but I'm not
gonna
> try and bully you into it, Trevor.
>
As I'd posted; I'm resistant to whichever form or
tack you wish to take in that regard.
> >
> > Born and raised in Poland? Parents too?
>
> No. I was born and raised in the UK.
>
Oh, then you are less-personally aware of the hardships in Poland
during the second world war, or those of your family, Davey?
> How about yourself, Trevor?
>
I am self-created.
T.N.
> Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|