Joseph wrote:
> "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. He can't even get the date close to
> being right. I doubt he was talking about the earliest Egyptian Books of
> the Dead after all.
But you didn't find out, did you?
>>>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 and you can't
> figure out I'm critiquing your opinion of his retort as mediocre.
Perhaps you should try clearer writing, then.
>>>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. It was piss-poor. And your reply
> below shows that wasn't your point. I don't know Lizard but I've read
> posts from you attacking older material just because it was held in
> esteem by age old tradition. And with your usual anti-religion crusade,
> it is not hard to connect the dots.
"Crusade"?
> It's time to fess up atheist, or shut up.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Are you sure it's accurate?
>>>even if it comes from a religious text.
>>
>>I never asserted otherwise, fool.
>
>
> And I wasn't commenting on you here, jackass. I was stating my opinion
> on the matter.
Was Lizard referencing a religious text? You don't seem to have
confirmed this before commenting on it, which strikes me as a flawed
approach to take before one begins one's expostulation.
>>>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. And poor consistency over a near millennium
> worth of varied authors of two different religions is not a major
> defect. Your short story reference is insipid, dear.
It is if one is proclaiming it as the divinly inspired word of God.
Unless you're OK with God changing his mind that often, and changing his
mind in the same way and with the same goals as political factions on
Earth.
> 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. Mayhap because now you know that's nonsense and
> your diversion into, I was just applauding clever rhetoric, is a
> desperate diversionary tactic.
Diversionary from WHAT?
> That's your track record, after all.
>
Coming from Joseph The Stupid, that's funny. Don't you remember the
spanking you got last year?
|
