"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:FbWdnagCIbnkXJHYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.
Yes, we know you have money. Insert laugh track *again*.
>> He can't even get the date close to being right.
>
> You are making assumptions that are not backed up by the stated facts.
That's kind of the point. Lizard's statement was so vague there is no
clear fact of the matter. The statement is not witty -- it's
unnecessarily ambiguous. And the Bible is the best guess here.
>> 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.
Mine? No way, bucko, but thanks for the comedy.
>>>> 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.
Oh, and here is another problem. Lizard is late to the dance, that issue
was already addressed in this very thread by Invid Fan and others.
>> 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?
Egad! You can't fake being this dull. The point isn't the language you
used. The point is that your compliment was unwarranted, thus you
display evidence of having a mediocre wit by complementing banality.
>>>> 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 modi*** of critical thinking
> skills. I do, you don't. That is why I got the joke, and you got
> pissy.
Throwing the Bible (or other ancient religious work) changes the issue
from a old medium book/new medium into a very different critique of the
silliness of believing moldy old religious texts as a
contrast/comparison to modeling your life inane pop culture movies such
as Maze and Monsters.
That is the wittier comment, especially given the name of this thread.
>> 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).
Try to be a little more coherent, buckwheat.
>> 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.
You miss again!
>> 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Message-ID: <AbednZD7tZj0V17ZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: What Witchcraft Isn't
From: "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.society.liberalism,alt.religion.wicca,rec.games.frp.dnd,r
ec.arts.sf.written
"Jani" <jani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:naSdnVPpoZGVVF7ZRVnyuA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:COSdncIhOZDBN17ZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "The Cunning Linguist :è- Cmdr. Usenet OperAtions"
>> <the_witchboy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:bsLwg.5838$iz4.4392@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Kate " <cobalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:4518f6a2.1120692968@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> It was a snarky comment and apparently went over your head. I am
>>>> well aware he wasn't consciously trying to recruit me. He was
>>>> however trying to make himself look cool which is what your whole
>>>> witchcraft thing is - an obvious attempt to construct a way to look
>>>> cool because you don't feel cool enough.
>>
>>> Yeah., nothing makes you look cool like identifying yourself with a
>>> group that has been reviled, hated, tortured and killed for
>>> centuries
>>
>> To some people, yes. Especially to dip****s who fancy being the Big
>> Bad.
>
> And that *really* pisses me off, especially when wikkins do it.
> (Wiccans, otoh, tend to know their history and have more sense.) There
> was never any homogenous, cohesive group of witches who were "reviled,
> hated, tortured and killed for centuries". Nor was there any single
> 'Olde Religionne' to which they belonged. Some people not only
> 'identify with' a group, they invent the damn group in the first
> place.
Well put. I never understood the whole "ancient=legitimate" thing,
either. If something is legitimate, or otherwise works well for you, who
cares if it is 5000 years old, or 5 minutes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
That is the post I was thinking of. Okay, I overstated the point, here.
But my murky mempry of it left a bad impression. But you do seem to have
a negative attittude towards tradition per se.
>> And with your usual anti-religion crusade,
>
> Crusade? No, that is a Christian thing.
Playing the halfwit who doesn't comprehend multiple word meanings in
English isn't funny... actually that is a little humorous since it hits
too close to home.
>> it is not hard to connect the dots.
>
> ...yet you always miss the mark.
>
>> It's time to fess up atheist,
>
> Fess up what?
Fess up on taking another op****tunity to mock Christianity (like you
just did a few lines up), the Bible and sundry related targets.
>> or shut up.
>
> You have no ability to shut me up, boy.
Blah, Blah, blah.
>>>> 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.
It's a good thing they don't depend on your evaluations, then.
>>>> 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:
Can't even defend your Philistinism, huh?
>> 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.
Your resistance is futile.
>> 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.
Context matters. The Bible, Mazes and Monsters...
>> 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.
Get off your high horse. And it was your second post (with your usual
smear attack, that are so predictable they could be written by a
computer) I referred to, genius.
>> That's your track record, after all.
>
> Your track record is that of a kook. Let's see if you continue.
More sidestepping.
|
