Re: TOBS: WDDK

From: Spartacus (J_at_rogers.com)
Date: 10/05/04 

Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 04:58:26 -0400

>
> No, but the lens on a camera my age still work through a full range
> of focus, while the lenses in my eyes do not and require correction
> with auxiliary lenses.

I too need correctional lenses... Your eyes distinguish depth preception
via a three dimentional image. Cameras produce a flat two dimentional
rendition. Technology comes from our copying or duplicating (where
possible) things that occure naturally but not always as efficiantly. i.e.
birds don't need air ports or runways... Those with eye afflictions don't
represeent the average. Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt
over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness.

>
> > I'm on to your snake pit tactics
> >anyway... Whatever I say will be wrong so you may be right,
>
> No, you can be right too.
> You haven't bothered to be so far, but you have the choice.

That's cuz you don't facts when they're presented to you! Why would I lie?
Plus you make hastey decisions about what kind of person you think I am.

>
> > at the expence
> >of others, naturally! You're not hear to enlighten anyone but to argue
your
> >own, private, case
>
> Private case? I argue for truth. I post majority opinions here.
> It is you who argue for the nut fringe!

The "nut fringe" line seems to vary from time to time. I came here to have
my belief
in God and His son reconfirmed and established, in good faith! It's not
enough that
Winesses and Ex-Witnesses might argue amoungst themselves, but you have to
further compound the issue by slopping all over The Bible! I haven't been
alotted the
time to banter indefinately... Or maybe I just don't value being so right
all the time
as consistently as you do. At least I don't go to a Mechanic and tell him I
have
Drywall experience! I look for reasons to bring people together. You look
for reasons
to divide and seperate them. I'd encourage but you belittle. Start tayloring
your posts
in the appropriate NGs and then talk to me about nut fringes...

>
> > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy!
>
> Well it is an internet vigil in a way. I'm a vigilante against
> Creationist lies and fundamentalist theology.

Knowing the fundamentals can get you places. That's a step up from blind
acceptance!
It's not what's taught in The Bible that's at question here. It's how the GB
uses it
against it's own people... Some of the best minds today stand by creationism
in unlocking
secrets they were incapable of understanding unless they "do" look at it
that way...
I'm all for innovation and progress, but the unknown produces fear and
apprehension
that do tend to impede these things necessary for our greater understanding.
The road
to your future is costly as well and paved with better intentions than
arguing over who
owns the grappling hook...
>
> >But one more : "Latch Key Kid" seeking power from outside your
building...
>
> Your metaphor escapes me.

Does it really? There are bounderies everywhere! If you wiah to voice
anything contrary,
the majority must understand you fully conceive the full picture and
appaerently you do not.
Probably because you've never been a Witness and are coming from way off in
left field!
This isn't an anti-creationism NG... That's not what we're here to
discuss...

>
> >Only your arrogance preceeds the poison someone will oneday serve you
> >with your coffee... I have very little time for young Nazis from the skin
> >head club or your kind of slop, crossposted from various other holes
spitting out
> >square pegs... Obviously, you and your worm collection are in the wrong
> >place!
>
> Invective makes for inadequate rebattal.
> Try addressing the points I made instead of blustering.

 I don't have to do anything you tell me to do... I'm over 18 and make my
own decisions.
You speak of Man made conclusions you draw from Man made theories passed
down to
other men who also seek to further intrench them, in an NG that should be
devoted to
spiritual refinements... Hello? You're in the wrong NG!

>
> >This isn't : "The Daily Planet!" Do you suspect you or your big group of
> >cycle sluts and juviniles will ever grow up? That would be like trying to
get a
> >horse to squat on a toilet.... You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it
to me!
>
> When things are proven to you, as in the previous posts, you resort to
> libel and invective. That's hardly encouragement for honest debate.

I'm not "resorting"... I'm purposefully going there! Honestly, I don't want
to debate death
by natural selection as an alternative to death by disfellowshipping. It
would negate my reasons
for coming here in the first place. We're talking about issues between
people and your talking
about issues between hip bones and think this gives president for debate?

>
> But that's OK, I've provoked you into showing your true colors. When
> defeated in argument, cuss and insult, that's your style.

"slop" isn't a cuss or an insult in the context I used it... I left it
undefined in your case. My style?
Who's claiming victory for an arguement that isn't being waged? Who's
drawing all kinds of
conclusions about what I believe or do not before they even know me? Who
generalizes about
all Witnesses that learned good intentions that come from The Bible,
misapplied to them and those
shunned by such generalizations? What about what they've been through or are
going through
that has little to do with large, bipedal hips? "Oh, I know! I'll tell them
we come from Apes and
The Bible really sucks! That should convince them!" You couldn't be farther
from your : "truth"
if you busied yourself throwing stones at ocean liners. Fact is, apes will
be apes and humans will
be humans though huh? "Hey Witnesses! Look over here at us Apostates tellin
you the Bible's
full of #@$&!" Great approach John... I can see you really thought this
out...

>
> ## Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error.

This assumes if something were correct, it would spur no controversy which
can over turn something
whether it's correct or not, or we wouldn't pollute our air and water...
Being correct isn't always the
point then. We see the same words via different perspectives suitable to our
particular pursuits in life.
That doesn't make it right or wrong, only suitable for the user. It's what
we believe that becomes
reality. What we call "the present" is strictly a transitory state mutable
to a positive future by those
willing to share a combined and co-ordinated effort toward its inception.
Most findings are widely
publisized on The Internet right now. If they're there, why do you need to
proove them? Why aren't
you looking for what's right about what people believe for a practicle
application instead of always
trying to reinvent the wheel? Where's the spiritual application of what you
advocate?
>