Some Guy <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:WuFPg.3332$nL2.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
Actually I did. Read Lizard's replay to me -- he was indeed referring to
the Bible. I didn't misinterpret Lizard after all. Does Malachias
acknowledge that? No. In fact, Lizard shows some of the same stupidity
Malachias referred to:
Lizard "Point is, deriving morality/ethics/etc from a compilation of
ancient
tomes is pretty silly..."
Malachias "Joseph:> 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."
Does the cur acknowledge this? Again, No. And he read that post, for he
replied to it. Indeed, he continues to applaud Lizard! Let's get real
here -- Mal doesn't have an honest bone in his body when challenged.
>>>>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.
Given I was replying to Malachias, not Lizard, it really should not have
been much of an issue. If one praises a mediocre post (regardless of
whether Lizard's post was or not), one might be prepared for criticism
especially on Usenet.
>>>>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"?
Maybe you should reference a good dictionary.
>> 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?
It a very good inference given Malachias repeated posts on theistic
religions. And atheist was used as a descriptive label? Why should an
atheist be uncomfortable being labled as one in a post referring to the
Bible. I don't believe Mal was, though.
>>>>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.
It's called interperation.
>>>>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?
When people harshly criticize him or his posts, he almost invariably
turns the insults (whether deserved or not) on the flamer without really
addressing his own weaknesses. Notice, he started using insults like
fool and moron first. I'm certainly culpable for hostility too, but I'm
calling him an egomaniac.
>> 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?
I remember you giving me that title last year. I also remember the
rhetorical thra****ngs *you* got from almost every regular poster of
rec.games.frp.dnd in 2005. It may have exceeded the spectacle of
Christopher Burke's flameout a few years ago.
What's funny is that you are playing Little Buddy to Malachias Invictus.
You tried to do the same with MSB, but you know what's different.
MSB actually had talent. Mal just has the vileness and the posting
endurance.
|
