"Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Xns98411260E7007619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> "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]
>
>>>>>>>>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.
Your knowledge of that fact is irrelevant.
> Insert laugh track *again*.
Laugh all you want. My success is a matter of public record. Feel free
to
ask for details. Let me know if you want details about my educational
achievements as well (which of course have absolutely nothing to do with
my
monetary success).
>>> 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.
The point is that your assumptions have no logical basis?
> Lizard's statement was so vague there is no clear fact of the matter.
Irrelevant. Lizard was being clever. The details are largely
inconsequential.
> The statement is not witty
Actually, it is.
> -- it's unnecessarily ambiguous.
....according to you. Of course, you are a dip****, and no one really
really
cares.
> And the Bible is the best guess here.
The fact that you got that impression means his point wasn't particularly
ambiguous (assuming that was his intended meaning).
>>> 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?
Sure. If you feel otherwise, you are engaging in pointless gainsaying,
no?
> No way, bucko, but thanks for the comedy.
You really need to watch more Penn & Teller.
>>>>> 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,
Irrelevant again.
> that issue was already addressed in this very thread by Invid Fan and
> others.
Keep on spouting those irrelevancy.
>>> 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.
Are you admitting your failures?
> The point isn't the language you used.
You have no point, boy.
> The point is that your compliment was unwarranted,
It was absolutely warranted. Lizard, kudos to you.
> thus you display evidence of having a mediocre wit by complementing
> banality.
Cry me a river, tard.
>>>>> 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.
Cozy up with your babble.
> That is the wittier comment, especially given the name of this thread.
So says you, and your track record is pretty sad.
>>> 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.
Are you having trouble with the vocabulary?
>> ...yet you assume he is attacking your beliefs, and without evidence
>> to back that up.
>
> You miss again!
Cry me a river, 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
> 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.
In other words, you are utterly full of ****. You may apologize now.
> Okay, I overstated the point, here.
No, you were completely and uttlery full of ****, and intentionally
misrepresented my statement to try to win an argument.
> But my murky mempry of it left a bad impression. But you do seem to have
> a negative attittude towards tradition per se.
Prove it, chump.
>>> 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.
Are you denying the fact that crusades are a Christian thing?
>>> It's time to fess up atheist,
>>
>> Fess up what?
>
> Fess up on taking another op****tunity to mock Christianity
There are too many op****tunities to count. What is your point?
> (like you just did a few lines up),
Duh.
> the Bible
Don't get me started.
> and sundry related targets.
Duh.
>> Your opinions have little value.
>
> It's a good thing they don't depend on your evaluations, then.
Their lack of value doesn't, either.
>>>>> 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?
Feel free to clarify what I need to defend.
>>> 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.
It is, because the world is filled with more paste eaters and window
lickers
than thinking people. Then again, I found out I don't need to resist, and
can instead make money from the labors of the aforementioned people. I
have
even tried to help them see how easy it is to make that money, but they
would rather work until they get sent to the glue factory.
>>> 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...
What part about "no more stupid" did you fail to understand?
>> 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.
Get on reality.
> And it was your second post
What post is that, exactly?
> (with your usual smear attack, that are so predictable they could be
> written by a
> computer) I referred to, genius.
<yawn> Post proof and make a point or shut the **** up, kook.
>>> That's your track record, after all.
>>
>> Your track record is that of a kook. Let's see if you continue.
>
> More sidestepping.
No, more reality. Suck it up.
--
^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
|
