"Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Xns9840E381DF260619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:qaednVOfSPJJCZHYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>> "Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9840A7912EC87619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Lizard" <lizard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Sep 2006 09:22:03 -0700, "Bill Wayne" <HWayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> wrotC:DRIVE_E
>>>>>
>>>>>>I never quite understood this. Who in their right minds would get
>>>>>>their views on life from a *movie*?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who in their right minds would get their views on life from a 4000
>>>>> year old book?
>>>>
>>>> Excellent retort, sir.
>>>
>>> Not really
>>
>> Yes, really.
>
> Keep on digging your own grave.
I can afford to have someone else do that.
> He can't even get the date close to being right.
You are making assumptions that are not backed up by the stated facts.
> I doubt he was talking about the earliest Egyptian Books of
> the Dead after all.
So what if he was? You are the one making the assumption that he is
talking
about your pet holy book.
>>> but I expect such mediocrity from you, Invictus.
>>
>> Strange, but last time I checked it was Lizard who made the clever
>> retort.
>
> Idiot, you said the retort was excellent and now clever
I was. That is even so if his dates were off by a few thousand years.
> and you can't figure out I'm critiquing your opinion of his retort as
> mediocre.
As far as compliments go, it *was* mediocre. It didn't even use flowery
language. So?
>>> Neither extreme age nor being in a book disqualifies excellence in
>>> philosophy,
>>
>> No ****, moron. Neither modernity nor being in a movie disqualifies
>> it either. I guess you missed the point. Again.
>
> That only works if the retort was good.
No, that only works if the reader has a modicum of critical thinking
skills.
I do, you don't. That is why I got the joke, and you got pissy.
> It was piss-poor.
You only think so because you feel it is a slight against your deeply held
and irrational beliefs (even if it wasn't).
> And your reply below shows that wasn't your point.
My *point* was that his retort was clever, moron.
> I don't know Lizard
....yet you assume he is attacking your beliefs, and without evidence to
back
that up.
> but I've read posts from you attacking older material just because it
was
> held in
> esteem by age old tradition.
Prove it. Show the message ID and quote.
> And with your usual anti-religion crusade,
Crusade? No, that is a Christian thing.
> it is not hard to connect the dots.
....yet you always miss the mark.
> It's time to fess up atheist,
Fess up what?
> or shut up.
You have no ability to shut me up, boy.
>>> even if it comes from a religious text.
>> I never asserted otherwise, fool.
> And I wasn't commenting on you here, jackass.
In that case, maybe you should not have made the comment in response to my
post.
> I was stating my opinion on the matter.
Your opinions have little value.
>>> One can, after all, take many insights about human life and culture
>>> from a great work of literature like the Bible
>>
>> Our definitions of "great work of literature" differ greatly, then.
>> As literature, the Christian Bible is crap. I have seen collections
>> of short stories written by different authors that had more
>> consistency.
>
> Your lack of taste is noted.
Lack of taste? Let us watch your excusemaking:
> And poor consistency over a near millennium
> worth of varied authors of two different religions is not a major
> defect.
A defect is a defect, regardless of the reasons. The Christian Bible is
such a crappy piece of literature, that even the vast majority of
Christians
haven't read it cover to cover. Most cannot even answer basic questions
about it. Hell, I would match 3 random Trekkies against 3 random
Christians
any day of the week in Star Trek vs. Bible trivia. We both know who would
win.
> Your short story reference is insipid, dear.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
> And you don't have a cogent argument of why Lizard's notion, that taking
> views of life from ancient books is a poor, nay, crazy thing to do, is
> an excellent assertion.
That isn't even the point, dip****. The point was that taking one's views
on life from a movie is *no more stupid* than taking one's life from an
ancient text.
> Mayhap because now you know that's nonsense
You still don't get the point.
> and your diversion into, I was just applauding clever rhetoric,
Diversion? That was the whole of my post.
> is a desperate diversionary tactic.
Yeah, my post complementing Lizard's clever post was a desperate
diversionary tactic designed to draw attention away from the invisible
mystery post that no one can see.
> That's your track record, after all.
Your track record is that of a kook. Let's see if you continue.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
|
