| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:24:36 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,385 |
On 28/07/2025 in message <menr3aForimU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
You seem very confused. To help you my OP was:
"That comes up frequently in Israel based FB groups, is it Israeli
dogma?"
I have no idea why you think asking me a question about the BBC has any
relevance, did you mean to ask Pamela?
I was responding directly to what you claimed (which is still there,
above).
You were talking about information emanating from within Gaza but went
quiet when asked how it was getting out in the absence of the BBC and
other news organisations.
A link would be useful.
On 28/07/2025 in message <menr3aForimU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
You seem very confused. To help you my OP was:
"That comes up frequently in Israel based FB groups, is it Israeli
dogma?"
I have no idea why you think asking me a question about the BBC has any
relevance, did you mean to ask Pamela?
I was responding directly to what you claimed (which is still there,
above).
You were talking about information emanating from within Gaza but went
quiet when asked how it was getting out in the absence of the BBC and
other news organisations.
A link would be useful.
On 28 Jul 2025 at 00:29:40 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/07/2025 03:47 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 27/07/2025 in message <memp9qFj0m0U7@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 27/07/2025 02:38 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
I have told you how you can get the information, do it or not, your >>>>>>> choice.
OK.
So you don't know whether the BBC and other news organisations are >>>>>> allowed into Gaza.
You should have said so.
Why, it had no relevance to my OP, it was just a random question you >>>>> threw in the pot?
Did you think I was uncritically accepting your professed ignorance as >>>> to whether the BBC and other news organisations are currently allowed
into Gaza?
Switch on your sarcasm detectors?
You seem very confused. To help you my OP was:
"That comes up frequently in Israel based FB groups, is it Israeli dogma?" >>>
I have no idea why you think asking me a question about the BBC has any
relevance, did you mean to ask Pamela?
I was responding directly to what *you* claimed (which is still there,
above).
You were talking about information emanating from within Gaza but went
quiet when asked how it was getting out in the absence of the BBC and
other news organisations.
He didn't "go quiet", he answered the question with the obvious answer, but you chose to ignore it. In the absence of legal or safe access to Gaza the BBC
along with every news organisation (apart from Israeli/US government propaganda) gets its news where it can.
Most recently, from a GHF mercenary
(they generally prefer to be referred to as contractors, it was advisors in 1960s Africa as I remember), who talked about his experiences.
If you don't like the answer, fair enough, but I doubt any of us particularly want to be cross examined on our answers.
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:08 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r2q38k1ohs9r8bce456h4pctdmuj9n6k9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:46:09 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q9r47ktkvkgucup256veeop9t9n1jsj7ia@4ax.com...
The fact
that there are two sides involved in the war does not in any way
justify Israels' slaughter of civilians but it gives them an excuse to >>>>> keep it going.
Surely one of the fundamental points which the Todal and others
are making, as was said about the British Army in Northern
Ireland, is that surely we are entitled to expect to the IDF to
know better ?
The British Army in Northern Ireland and the IDF in Israel are not
responsible for deciding military policy, they implement the policy
decided by their government. You can certainly condemn individual
soldiers or units for specific actions but not for the overall policy.
Trying to shift the blame onto the IDF is letting Netyanu off the
hook.
The "Just Obeying Orders" defence, went out or the window with the
Nuremberg Trials.
What part of "You can certainly condemn individual soldiers or units
for specific actions" did you not grasp?
While I doubt the IDF have even yet tried the "Radios didn't work" Defence; >> as did Col. Derek Wilford OBE, on behalf of 1 Para; at the Bloody Sunday
Tribunal.
As legitimate representatives of the State and thus civilsed values in both
cases, aren't we entitled to expect a "Higher Standard of Behaviour"
from the IDF, and formerly the BA, than we are from HAMAS or PIRA;
and all those we categorise as "murderous rabble" ?
Because otherwise, were we ever were to suggest that the IDF ever
had any sort of "excuse" at all, to continue murdering civilians,
then we would be admitting in effect that morally speaking,
the IDF are in fact no better than HAMAS.
Similarly continually insisting that people should condemn HAMAS in
equal measure, is totally irrelevant; when there is no possible moral
equivalence in the first place.
As I recently pointed out to another poster, that's like arguing that
Wayne Couzens wasn't really such a bad chap; after all, he only killed
one woman whereas Peter Sutcliffe killed at least 13 people and Fred
West at least a dozen.
No it isn't.
And nobody* would seriously to argue that.
Wayne Couzins pleaded guilty to the kidnap, rape, and murder of
Sarah Everard
And nothing anyone else has ever done, can change that fact.
Or in any way justify what Wayne Couzens did; or lessen the evil
that he perpetrated.
Just as nobody can justify the IDF starving Palestinian children
and destroying their homes
And just as nobody can justify the Hamas slaughter of civilians on 7th October, them continuing to hold hostages and make public displays of
their dead bodies, or firing missiles into civilian areas.
There are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in Gaza and
they BOTH need to stop. Trying to put the focus on one side by
creating an argument about which of them is the worse is just
distraction that lets the other side off the hook.
On 25/07/2025 13:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 13:42:08 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r2q38k1ohs9r8bce456h4pctdmuj9n6k9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:46:09 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q9r47ktkvkgucup256veeop9t9n1jsj7ia@4ax.com...
The fact
that there are two sides involved in the war does not in any way
justify Israels' slaughter of civilians but it gives them an excuse to >>>>>> keep it going.
Surely one of the fundamental points which the Todal and others
are making, as was said about the British Army in Northern
Ireland, is that surely we are entitled to expect to the IDF to
know better ?
The British Army in Northern Ireland and the IDF in Israel are not
responsible for deciding military policy, they implement the policy
decided by their government. You can certainly condemn individual
soldiers or units for specific actions but not for the overall policy. >>>>
Trying to shift the blame onto the IDF is letting Netyanu off the
hook.
The "Just Obeying Orders" defence, went out or the window with the
Nuremberg Trials.
What part of "You can certainly condemn individual soldiers or units
for specific actions" did you not grasp?
While I doubt the IDF have even yet tried the "Radios didn't work" Defence; >>> as did Col. Derek Wilford OBE, on behalf of 1 Para; at the Bloody Sunday >>> Tribunal.
As legitimate representatives of the State and thus civilsed values in both
cases, aren't we entitled to expect a "Higher Standard of Behaviour"
from the IDF, and formerly the BA, than we are from HAMAS or PIRA;
and all those we categorise as "murderous rabble" ?
Because otherwise, were we ever were to suggest that the IDF ever
had any sort of "excuse" at all, to continue murdering civilians,
then we would be admitting in effect that morally speaking,
the IDF are in fact no better than HAMAS.
Similarly continually insisting that people should condemn HAMAS in
equal measure, is totally irrelevant; when there is no possible moral >>>>> equivalence in the first place.
As I recently pointed out to another poster, that's like arguing that
Wayne Couzens wasn't really such a bad chap; after all, he only killed >>>> one woman whereas Peter Sutcliffe killed at least 13 people and Fred
West at least a dozen.
No it isn't.
And nobody* would seriously to argue that.
Wayne Couzins pleaded guilty to the kidnap, rape, and murder of
Sarah Everard
And nothing anyone else has ever done, can change that fact.
Or in any way justify what Wayne Couzens did; or lessen the evil
that he perpetrated.
Just as nobody can justify the IDF starving Palestinian children
and destroying their homes
And just as nobody can justify the Hamas slaughter of civilians on 7th
October, them continuing to hold hostages and make public displays of
their dead bodies, or firing missiles into civilian areas.
There are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in Gaza and
they BOTH need to stop. Trying to put the focus on one side by
creating an argument about which of them is the worse is just
distraction that lets the other side off the hook.
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) two >sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) two >>sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in
Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they
are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor
are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
tops the list.
Given the context, it all seems to be somewhat of a damp squib. IMV IExtreme caution might be a better idea, especially given that the BBC
would take the phrase rCOverified by BBC VerifyrCO with some caution.
On 28 Jul 2025 11:26:04 GMT
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Given the context, it all seems to be somewhat of a damp squib. IMV I
would take the phrase rCOverified by BBC VerifyrCO with some caution.
Extreme caution might be a better idea, especially given that the BBC
has always been an organ of the state and its job is to tell people
what the state wants them to hear and see.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that
resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real
argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Meant exactly what it said; and notheing more.
On 29/07/2025 11:08 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that
resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real
argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
Oh dear, oh dear...
That's funny.
A little knowledge...
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Meant exactly what it said; and notheing more.
It means "Do not personally judge individuals for transgressions".
But even then, does it prove anything? If, leading a life of studiously avoiding the
judging of others for transgressions, does that make one proof against the judgment of
others, including the very transgressors whom one refused to judge?
Whatever, i does not mean "Do not exercise your judgement when assessing situations or
any danger arising from them".
Still less does it mean that the state (of whatever size) must not judge transgressions. If it meant that (it doesn't), no system of temporal justice would be
possible, for instance.
No penalty points for doing 24mph on the eight lane dual-carriageway that is Park Lane,
W1, no u100 fines for putting waste into the wrong bin, no sanction for chain-smoking
at the bar of your local pub.
And absolute freedom to commit murder, rape and GBH.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that
resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real
argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Meant exactly what it said; and notheing more.
And so my apologies to him, for associating him with a Heretic.
Go in Peace.
bb
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that
resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real
argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when >>recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become
the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) two >>>sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in
Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they
are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor
are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that
resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real
argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when >>>recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become
the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
bb
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) two >>>>sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in
Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they
are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor
are they in a position to get it stopped.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>>
tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >>regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >>sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get
Israel to stop their attacks?
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference
between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that
resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real
argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become
the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 20:23:01 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when >>>>recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become
the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
You really, really need to take a break
from your anti-Catholic
ranting; every post you make is just showing you up even more.
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable."
Oh, how true. All those kids beaten or molested by nuns or monks
(especially in Ireland) are probably remembering all wrong. They forget
all the kindness, all the gentle mentoring. Let's gaslight the lot of 'em.
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become
the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
When and where were you ordained?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:meuadiFr6dbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference >>>>>>>>>> between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality"
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley. >>>>>>>
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church.
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>> Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become
the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
When and where were you ordained?
We all have an obligation to engage in Acts of Charity; and try and
help those who appear bewildered and confused.
Which probably accounts for most of my replies to you, as it
happens.
On 30/07/2025 12:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:meuadiFr6dbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality" >>>>>>>>
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley. >>>>>>>>
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church. >>>>>>
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that >>>>>>
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>> Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become >>>>> the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
When and where were you ordained?
We all have an obligation to engage in Acts of Charity; and try and
help those who appear bewildered and confused.
Which probably accounts for most of my replies to you, as it
happens.
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in theology or
Divinity,
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to
Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
"Brian Morrison" <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message news:20250730195625.66d234a3@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going
to Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
So much for Freethinking.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 20:02:17 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Brian Morrison" <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20250730195625.66d234a3@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going
to Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
So much for Freethinking.
I don't believe that myself, but of course Catholicism is
self-contradictory whatever your perspective.
On 30/07/2025 12:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:meuadiFr6dbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only >>>>>>>>>>> want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality" >>>>>>>>
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley. >>>>>>>>
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when
recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting
a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church. >>>>>>
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that >>>>>>
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>> Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become >>>>> the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
When and where were you ordained?
We all have an obligation to engage in Acts of Charity; and try and
help those who appear bewildered and confused.
Which probably accounts for most of my replies to you, as it
happens.
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and
respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander
off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you
clearly know little).
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to
Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:meunelFtaabU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 12:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:meuadiFr6dbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality" >>>>>>>>>
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley. >>>>>>>>>
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when >>>>>>> recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting >>>>>>> a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church. >>>>>>>
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that >>>>>>>
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>>> Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become >>>>>> the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
When and where were you ordained?
We all have an obligation to engage in Acts of Charity; and try and
help those who appear bewildered and confused.
Which probably accounts for most of my replies to you, as it
happens.
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in theology or
Divinity,
No.
Now my turn
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
Which one might assume, given what they claim to believe, would
be really important to them.
Is it reasonable to assume that practising Catholics, in their quest
to avoid Hell would at least display a rudimentary knowledge of their
own Faith ? A rudimentary knowledge which could be picked up by any >interested lay man, in a matter of hours ?
Answer: it is reasonable.
And yet they clearly don't.
Having presumably spent all of their RE lessons staring out of the
window, and so not having absorbed even a rudimentary knowledge: and
yet they nevertheless display that *smug arrogance* so notable among
some Catholics.
Which puts me in mind of the notion of "innate ideas". Which was
a favourite in the 17th C; and so tellingly demolished by John Locke
You don't actually have to take the trouble to read books or learn
anything; as you are already born with an "innate" knowledge of God.
Which in your case apparently covers an "innate Knowledge" of
all sorts of topics. All put there by God.
But sadly as soon becomes evident, only according to you.
Which is of course why Catholicism is so attractive to a certain
class of Englishman; the likes of Evelyn Waugh, and now Boris Johnson.
Yet another brilliant addition to your stable.
bb
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message >>news:meunelFtaabU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 12:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:meuadiFr6dbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality" >>>>>>>>>>
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley. >>>>>>>>>>
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>>>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>>>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when >>>>>>>> recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>>>>> Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting >>>>>>>> a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church. >>>>>>>>
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that >>>>>>>>
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>>>> Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become >>>>>>> the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of >>>>>> fact.
When and where were you ordained?
We all have an obligation to engage in Acts of Charity; and try and
help those who appear bewildered and confused.
Which probably accounts for most of my replies to you, as it
happens.
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in theology or
Divinity,
No.
Now my turn
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
Which one might assume, given what they claim to believe, would
be really important to them.
Is it reasonable to assume that practising Catholics, in their quest
to avoid Hell would at least display a rudimentary knowledge of their
own Faith ? A rudimentary knowledge which could be picked up by any >>interested lay man, in a matter of hours ?
Answer: it is reasonable.
So you have decided to treble down on your lack of knowledge or
understanding not preventing you from acting as if you do know what
you are talking about.
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real argument to put up.
And yet they clearly don't.
Having presumably spent all of their RE lessons staring out of the
window, and so not having absorbed even a rudimentary knowledge: and
yet they nevertheless display that *smug arrogance* so notable among
some Catholics.
Which puts me in mind of the notion of "innate ideas". Which was
a favourite in the 17th C; and so tellingly demolished by John Locke
You don't actually have to take the trouble to read books or learn >>anything; as you are already born with an "innate" knowledge of God.
Which in your case apparently covers an "innate Knowledge" of
all sorts of topics. All put there by God.
I wonder whether you have actually ever had a serious discussion with
any practising Catholic.
I obviously can't speak for JNugent but in my own case, apart from my
RE during school years, I have listened to priests and bishops
explaining a wide range of aspects of Catholic faith at Mass on
Sundays and various other occasions; I have attended various retreats, workshops and other events including weekly attendance at an Adult
Faith Development programme for 3 years. All, of course, enhanced by extensive reading from a wide range of authors, not exclusively
Catholic - as I have said in the past, I often learn more from those
who disagree with me than those who do agree.
I don't think there is anything exceptional about me, I know many
Catholics who have similar experience, but I and they might just know
a smidgeon or two more about Catholic teaching than what you seem to
think you have picked up in a few hours.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >>theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you
clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >>>theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no".
Do you ever tell the truth?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >>>>theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no".
OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok
for you to state just that he went for (a).
Do you never get tired of manufacturing stupid arguments?
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to
Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 12:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:meuadiFr6dbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 29/07/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2i8k1fokjg1700n13knq0705c7nunij0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:08:51 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ri0h8kpfjvb0l18lsku4m5d4tcuedf8r7o@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:00:48 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67vg8kdvhfvvnrg1h1ju0mi6lq75e5hu9m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:06:47 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:m6nc8kd6uvresipr9d4m9sj77psot38qdf@4ax.com...
I recognise that there are two groups behaving abominably; you only
want to recognise the activities on one side - that's the difference
between us.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Yet another thing you seem incapable of grasping - the difference >>>>>>>>>> between recognising reality and making judgement.
Ah right !
So now it's -
"Judge not lest you be judged except when recognising reality" >>>>>>>>>
Martin Harran 1.1
You're wasted on here you know.
You could set up your own church, and become the new Ian Paisley. >>>>>>>>>
As I've just said to Todal, you still cannot grasp the principle that >>>>>>>> resorting to ad hominems is an admission that you don't have any real >>>>>>>> argument to put up.
It isn't an ad-hominem.
In choosing to interpret
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
As *actually* meaning "Judge not lest you be judged except when >>>>>>> recognising reality"
You are attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic
Teaching.
In fact you are guilty of Heresy. A Grave Mortal Sin.
So it's lucky for you that neither your Parish Priest nor
your Bishop read this Group. As otherwise you mighty be expecting >>>>>>> a letter through the post; threatening excommunication at
the very least, unless you recant.
As I said, your only real alternative, is to start your own Church. >>>>>>>
However thinking about it, even Ian Paisley would have agreed that >>>>>>>
"Judge not lest you be judged"
Matthew 7.1
Accusing me of attempting to subvert, accepted Christain and Catholic >>>>>> Teaching. and suggesting I could set up your own church, and become >>>>>> the new Ian Paisley is ad hominem.
That's the Sin of Pride rearing its ugly head again.
The comment was made for your own Spititual Good; to enable you
you mend your ways, before it is too late.
And that's not a judgement of any kind; just a simple statement of
fact.
When and where were you ordained?
We all have an obligation to engage in Acts of Charity; and try and
help those who appear bewildered and confused.
Which probably accounts for most of my replies to you, as it
happens.
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and
respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun
intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander
off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary
qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you
clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >>>>>theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no".
OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok
for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
But if I had then yes, it would not have been--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
untruthful for me to say so, whereas it was untruthful for you to
say he went for (c).
Do you never get tired of manufacturing stupid arguments?
You provide the stupid, and I'll provide the argument.
On 30/07/2025 07:56 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to
Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that could not be more inaccurate!
I'll explain.
A Catholic is someone who has been baptised / Christened by another Catholic (usually a
priest diring a formal baptism ceremony, but it doesn't have to be). Until that
happens, they are not Catholic.
What is the point of baptism and what are its effects?
Baptism fulfils at least two functions. One of those, as mentioned above, is to welcome
the recipient to the Catholic Church and in doing so, to appoint two willing persons
other than the recipient's parents to be a Godfather and a Godmother, each promising to
do whatever is in their power to make sure that the recipient (usually an infant) is
brought up within the Church.
There is another function, which is to annul / forgive the recipient's inherited
Original Sin.
So... at the same moment, the person being baptised becomes a Catholic and is forgiven
their share of Original Sin. There is never more than a point in time when the person
is simultaneously Catholic and bearing the burden of Original Sin.
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) two >>>>>sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they
are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor
are they in a position to get it stopped.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>tops the list.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>>>
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >>>regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >>>sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get
Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >>>>>>theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>>>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no".
OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok
for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly
said he didn't go for (c)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2But if I had then yes, it would not have been
untruthful for me to say so, whereas it was untruthful for you to
say he went for (c).
Do you never get tired of manufacturing stupid arguments?
You provide the stupid, and I'll provide the argument.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1q2m8kp9ben6r28hss3cl0jqg6srd7st1l@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
I obviously can't speak for JNugent but in my own case, apart from my
RE during school years, I have listened to priests and bishops
explaining a wide range of aspects of Catholic faith at Mass on
Sundays and various other occasions; I have attended various retreats,
workshops and other events including weekly attendance at an Adult
Faith Development programme for 3 years. All, of course, enhanced by
extensive reading from a wide range of authors, not exclusively
Catholic - as I have said in the past, I often learn more from those
who disagree with me than those who do agree.
I don't think there is anything exceptional about me, I know many
Catholics who have similar experience, but I and they might just know
a smidgeon or two more about Catholic teaching than what you seem to
think you have picked up in a few hours.
quote:
JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:meunelFtaabU1@mid.individual.net...
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >theology or Divinity,
:unquote
As stated elsewhere Religion is a matter of Faith.
It is not a matter of attending
workshops and retreats;
which many of the faithful will never
have done in their lives. And certainly not before the 20th Century.
As fairly obviously had the Catholic Faith depended on workshops
and retreats it would never have survived under centuries of
oppression in Ireland.
Devout Catholics,such as Gay Byrne's mother.
The question to Nugent was ironic, BTW.
It's purely a matter of Faith. You are fortunate enough to have it.
Others clearly don't.
There is no benefit whatsoever to anyone, in your declaring yourself a >Catholic at the present time; except that is, to * Your Own Personal Vanity *.
When all non-Catholics will be intererested in, when you state your position, >as an Irish Catholic more especially, is the peadophile priest and similar >scandals.
That is all be all any non-Catholics will be interested in ; or will would >want to discuss.
Not your State of Grace
You are simply not doing either yourself or The Catholic Church any favours..
When all you are doing is giving Non-Catholics a further excuse to raise the >topic of peadophile priests; which to repeat ad nauseam. and whether you >happen to like it or it or not, is all that most non Catholics will be >interested in
And so please don't try and fool yourself that any perceived abuse you might >have brought upon yourself in this Group, is any way comparable to the agonies >Catholic Martyrs brought upon themselves in by their adherence to the Faith.
And that you are accumulating Grace thereby.
As they weren't in the process, drawing people's attention to any current scandals;
which would clearly be of use to Non- Catholics in denigrating their Faith
And so its more likely to be precisely the opposite.
Speak to your Confessor about this; if you don't wish to believe me.
Nugent is most likely lapsed BTW; and so is quite happy to help lead you >astray.
bb.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mf1ebmFcrpoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 07:56 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to
Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that could not be more inaccurate! >>
I'll explain.
A Catholic is someone who has been baptised / Christened by another Catholic (usually a
priest diring a formal baptism ceremony, but it doesn't have to be). Until that
happens, they are not Catholic.
What is the point of baptism and what are its effects?
Baptism fulfils at least two functions. One of those, as mentioned above, is to welcome
the recipient to the Catholic Church and in doing so, to appoint two willing persons
other than the recipient's parents to be a Godfather and a Godmother, each promising to
do whatever is in their power to make sure that the recipient (usually an infant) is
brought up within the Church.
There is another function, which is to annul / forgive the recipient's inherited
Original Sin.
So... at the same moment, the person being baptised becomes a Catholic and is forgiven
their share of Original Sin. There is never more than a point in time when the person
is simultaneously Catholic and bearing the burden of Original Sin.
So do all those people baptised* by Non-Catholics, go to Hell then ?
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in >>>>>>>theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>>>>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no".
OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok >>>> for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly
said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >argument, or the full half hour?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2But if I had then yes, it would not have been
untruthful for me to say so, whereas it was untruthful for you to
say he went for (c).
Do you never get tired of manufacturing stupid arguments?
You provide the stupid, and I'll provide the argument.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mf1ebmFcrpoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 07:56 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to
Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that could not be more inaccurate! >>
I'll explain.
A Catholic is someone who has been baptised / Christened by another Catholic (usually a
priest diring a formal baptism ceremony, but it doesn't have to be). Until that
happens, they are not Catholic.
What is the point of baptism and what are its effects?
Baptism fulfils at least two functions. One of those, as mentioned above, is to welcome
the recipient to the Catholic Church and in doing so, to appoint two willing persons
other than the recipient's parents to be a Godfather and a Godmother, each promising to
do whatever is in their power to make sure that the recipient (usually an infant) is
brought up within the Church.
There is another function, which is to annul / forgive the recipient's inherited
Original Sin.
So... at the same moment, the person being baptised becomes a Catholic and is forgiven
their share of Original Sin. There is never more than a point in time when the person
is simultaneously Catholic and bearing the burden of Original Sin.
So do all those people baptised* by Non-Catholics, go to Hell then ?
On 31/07/2025 04:47 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf1ebmFcrpoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 07:56 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to >>>> Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that could not be more inaccurate!
I'll explain.
A Catholic is someone who has been baptised / Christened by another Catholic
(usually a
priest diring a formal baptism ceremony, but it doesn't have to be). Until that
happens, they are not Catholic.
What is the point of baptism and what are its effects?
Baptism fulfils at least two functions. One of those, as mentioned above, is
to welcome
the recipient to the Catholic Church and in doing so, to appoint two willing
persons
other than the recipient's parents to be a Godfather and a Godmother, each >>> promising to
do whatever is in their power to make sure that the recipient (usually an >>> infant) is
brought up within the Church.
There is another function, which is to annul / forgive the recipient's
inherited
Original Sin.
So... at the same moment, the person being baptised becomes a Catholic and >>> is forgiven
their share of Original Sin. There is never more than a point in time when >>> the person
is simultaneously Catholic and bearing the burden of Original Sin.
So do all those people baptised* by Non-Catholics, go to Hell then ?
If I were you, I'd address that question to a non-Catholic.
Do non-Catholics even believe in the concept of Original Sin?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>>>>>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching?
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no".
OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok >>>>> for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly
said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >>argument, or the full half hour?
I said "No surprise that he went for (c)".
You said "Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly
said "no".
OK, I'm a really stupid person so please expalin in simple terms how
you didn't say he went only for (a).
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) >>>>>>two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >>>>regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >>>>sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get
Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going
on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians.
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can
do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor
Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it
for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing
to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything
to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun >>>>>>>>>intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching? >>>>>>>>>
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no". >>>>>>
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok >>>>>> for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly
said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >>>argument, or the full half hour?
I said "No surprise that he went for (c)".
You said "Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly
said "no".
OK, I'm a really stupid person so please expalin in simple terms how
you didn't say he went only for (a).
(c) was that the "answer" would be "an attempt to change the subject". >Instead of changing the subject, he answered the question.
None of the options involved him never saying anything else ever again
after answering the question.
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>>Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) >>>>>>>two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>>civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>>tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >>>>>regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >>>>>sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the >>discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going
on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians.
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can
do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor
Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it
for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing
to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything
to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) >>>>>>> two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>> civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies
retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>> tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >>>>> regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan
civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >>>>> sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get
Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going
on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians.
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can
do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor
Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it
for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing
to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything
to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the
discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:33:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun
intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching? >>>>>>>>>>
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no". >>>>>>>
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok >>>>>>> for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly >>>>> said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >>>>argument, or the full half hour?
I said "No surprise that he went for (c)".
You said "Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly
said "no".
OK, I'm a really stupid person so please expalin in simple terms how
you didn't say he went only for (a).
(c) was that the "answer" would be "an attempt to change the subject". >>Instead of changing the subject, he answered the question.
None of the options involved him never saying anything else ever again >>after answering the question.
Ah, ok, I get it now, just another of the manufactured arguments that
you resort to when you have nothing useful to add to the actual
discussion but feel you should say *something*.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:16:38 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
Devout Catholics,such as Gay Byrne's mother.
You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Gay Byrne and his family.
Did you know them personally so that you can speak with so much
confidence about what Catholicism meant to them?
I do it for transparency; several people here have expressed caution
about anything written by a Catholic.
If you want to argue about Catholic teaching without continuing to
make an idiot of yourself,
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:g38n8klki8vfa8krcmpclkp0idua19kjgj@4ax.com...
If you want to argue about Catholic teaching without continuing to
make an idiot of yourself,
Try reading what I've actually written.
Rather than what you'd like to think, I'd written.
With some people at least, as with a Public School Education,
Catholicism can bestow a sense of confidence bordering on
arrogance which is not entirely in keeping with that
person's actual perceived intellectual capabilities.
Which can nevertheless provide a continuing source of
amusement, for those of a less Charitable nature.
So keep up the good work !
bb
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) >>>>>>>> two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>>> civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>>> tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no >>>>>> regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm >>>>>> sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get
Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going
on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians.
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can
do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor
Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it
for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing
to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything
to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the
discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what wasTo say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>
happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the
Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists >have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas; >and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do >so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right >for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which >would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 21:45:50 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:g38n8klki8vfa8krcmpclkp0idua19kjgj@4ax.com...
If you want to argue about Catholic teaching without continuing to
make an idiot of yourself,
Try reading what I've actually written.
Rather than what you'd like to think, I'd written.
With some people at least, as with a Public School Education,
Catholicism can bestow a sense of confidence bordering on
arrogance which is not entirely in keeping with that
person's actual perceived intellectual capabilities.
On the other hand, there are some people who know SFA about a subject
yet pronounce stuff as if they were expert in the subject.
And please stop digging
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 08:45:11 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
And please stop digging
You really, really should take your own advice.
Brush my whole post under the carpet.
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) >>>>>>>>> two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>>>> civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>>>> tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians.
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can
do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor
Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing
to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything
to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the
discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>> happening.To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>>
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas; >> and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do >> so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which >> would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:k9so8kt2542fbqpbfovevt5becqr7bsnsj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 08:45:11 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
And please stop digging
You really, really should take your own advice.
That's the spirit.
Brush my whole post under the carpet.
Just pretend it never happened.
A person might almost be led to believe, that you've already
had plenty of practice at that.
bb
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just) >>>>>>>>>> two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>>>>> civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>>>>> tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor
Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>> happening.To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>>>
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas; >>> and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli >"justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
On 1 Aug 2025 09:05:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just)
two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>>>>>> civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>>>>>> tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor >>>>>> Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>>> happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli
"justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
That doesnrCOt really fit in with my post he was replying to. I thought
Todal might elucidate but he doesnrCOt seem inclined to do so. I get the feeling that it was something he quite rightly feels strongly about
but didnrCOt really think it through before posting. That is not a
criticism of him; IrCOve done that myself a time or two!
On 1 Aug 2025 09:05:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com> >>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just)
two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent >>>>>>>>>>> civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one >>>>>>>>>> tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the
discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor >>>>>> Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>>> happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli
"justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
That doesnrCOt really fit in with my post he was replying to. I thought
Todal might elucidate but he doesnrCOt seem inclined to do so. I get the feeling that it was something he quite rightly feels strongly about
but didnrCOt really think it through before posting. That is not a
criticism of him; IrCOve done that myself a time or two!
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:18:51 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 04:47 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf1ebmFcrpoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 07:56 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to >>>>> Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that could not be more inaccurate!
I'll explain.
A Catholic is someone who has been baptised / Christened by another Catholic
(usually a
priest diring a formal baptism ceremony, but it doesn't have to be). Until that
happens, they are not Catholic.
What is the point of baptism and what are its effects?
Baptism fulfils at least two functions. One of those, as mentioned above, is
to welcome
the recipient to the Catholic Church and in doing so, to appoint two willing
persons
other than the recipient's parents to be a Godfather and a Godmother, each >>>> promising to
do whatever is in their power to make sure that the recipient (usually an >>>> infant) is
brought up within the Church.
There is another function, which is to annul / forgive the recipient's >>>> inherited
Original Sin.
So... at the same moment, the person being baptised becomes a Catholic and >>>> is forgiven
their share of Original Sin. There is never more than a point in time when >>>> the person
is simultaneously Catholic and bearing the burden of Original Sin.
So do all those people baptised* by Non-Catholics, go to Hell then ?
If I were you, I'd address that question to a non-Catholic.
Do non-Catholics even believe in the concept of Original Sin?
Presumably those denominations who baptise infants must think there is some point in doing so. Other than a nice day out.
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the
discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was
happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the
Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas; and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least *not* *preventing* *them* *invading* -
which would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
On 01/08/2025 09:23, silly nutcase wrote:
Brush my whole post under the carpet.
I think I will brush all your posts under the carpet
as you continue to live up to your name.
You're a waste of space, oxygen and time.
<plonk>
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:23:25 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:k9so8kt2542fbqpbfovevt5becqr7bsnsj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 08:45:11 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
And please stop digging
You really, really should take your own advice.
That's the spirit.
Brush my whole post under the carpet.
Nah, I dumped the rubbish in the bin rather than leaving it on public display.
On 31/07/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:18:51 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 04:47 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf1ebmFcrpoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/07/2025 07:56 PM, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:43:36 +0100
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Do practising Catholics need recognised qualifications at all,
in say theology or Divinity, in order not to end up in Hell ?
I thought that the concept of original sin meant that they're going to >>>>>> Hell irrespective of any action they take while extant.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that could not be more inaccurate!
I'll explain.
A Catholic is someone who has been baptised / Christened by another Catholic
(usually a
priest diring a formal baptism ceremony, but it doesn't have to be). Until that
happens, they are not Catholic.
What is the point of baptism and what are its effects?
Baptism fulfils at least two functions. One of those, as mentioned above, is
to welcome
the recipient to the Catholic Church and in doing so, to appoint two willing
persons
other than the recipient's parents to be a Godfather and a Godmother, each
promising to
do whatever is in their power to make sure that the recipient (usually an >>>>> infant) is
brought up within the Church.
There is another function, which is to annul / forgive the recipient's >>>>> inherited
Original Sin.
So... at the same moment, the person being baptised becomes a Catholic and
is forgiven
their share of Original Sin. There is never more than a point in time when
the person
is simultaneously Catholic and bearing the burden of Original Sin.
So do all those people baptised* by Non-Catholics, go to Hell then ?
If I were you, I'd address that question to a non-Catholic.
Do non-Catholics even believe in the concept of Original Sin?
Presumably those denominations who baptise infants must think there is some >> point in doing so. Other than a nice day out.
Then all the more reason to *ask them*.
I am not going to attempt an answer as to what other religions or denominations believe, but would point out that they obviously don't
adhere to Catholic beliefs and that that is the whole reason for their existence.
On 31/07/2025 06:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ in response to something - attributions on are PP unclear as to source:]
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the
discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>> happening.To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>
[RH:]
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas; >> and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do >> so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least *not* *preventing* *them* *invading* -
which would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
So you believe that under the Hitler regime, the German state's
ill-treatment of Jewish people only happened after 6th June 1944.
And this is over and above those books already listed on the Index
Librorum Prohibitorum which was issued by the Vatican until 1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
On 1 Aug 2025 at 12:06:52 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 06:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ in response to something - attributions on are PP unclear as to source:] >>
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by
making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to
stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt
imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>> happening.To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat. >>>
[RH:]
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas; >>> and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least *not* *preventing* *them* *invading* -
which would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
So you believe that under the Hitler regime, the German state's
ill-treatment of Jewish people only happened after 6th June 1944.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of Palestinians only happened after Oct 1923?
And is it particularly conclusive in either case?--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:33:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun
intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching? >>>>>>>>>>>
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no". >>>>>>>>
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok >>>>>>>> for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly >>>>>> said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >>>>>argument, or the full half hour?
I said "No surprise that he went for (c)".
You said "Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly
said "no".
OK, I'm a really stupid person so please expalin in simple terms how
you didn't say he went only for (a).
(c) was that the "answer" would be "an attempt to change the subject". >>>Instead of changing the subject, he answered the question.
None of the options involved him never saying anything else ever again >>>after answering the question.
Ah, ok, I get it now, just another of the manufactured arguments that
you resort to when you have nothing useful to add to the actual
discussion but feel you should say *something*.
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful"
since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
On 01/08/2025 01:23 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 12:06:52 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 06:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ in response to something - attributions on are PP unclear as to source:] >>>
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>>> happening.
[RH:]
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least *not* *preventing* *them* *invading* -
which would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
So you believe that under the Hitler regime, the German state's
ill-treatment of Jewish people only happened after 6th June 1944.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of Palestinians only >> happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have*
said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never said!
--And is it particularly conclusive in either case?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:33:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and >>>>>>>>>>>>respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun
intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching? >>>>>>>>>>>>
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you >>>>>>>>>>>>clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no". >>>>>>>>>
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok
for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly >>>>>>> said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >>>>>>argument, or the full half hour?
I said "No surprise that he went for (c)".
You said "Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly
said "no".
OK, I'm a really stupid person so please expalin in simple terms how >>>>> you didn't say he went only for (a).
(c) was that the "answer" would be "an attempt to change the subject". >>>>Instead of changing the subject, he answered the question.
None of the options involved him never saying anything else ever again >>>>after answering the question.
Ah, ok, I get it now, just another of the manufactured arguments that
you resort to when you have nothing useful to add to the actual
discussion but feel you should say *something*.
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful"
since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:33:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:04:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:30:04 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:23:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-31, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:10:29 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:OK, he went for (c) *as well as* (a)
So please be clear: do you have any recognised qualifications at all in
theology or Divinity, or have you gained some other recognised and
respected academic expertise which enables you to pontificate (no pun
intended) on the finer points of Catholic dogma and teaching? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
My forecast, the answer will be:
(a) No and no, or
(b) no answer at all, or
(c) an attempt to change the subject with your usual wide meander >>>>>>>>>>>>>off-topic (which might even encompass your new found imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>>qualifications in religious doctrine within religions of which you
clearly know little).
No surprise that he went for (c).
Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly said "no". >>>>>>>>>>
Do you ever tell the truth?
So it was untruthful for me to state just that he went for (c) but ok
for you to state just that he went for (a).
I didn't state that.
You might want to read again what you actually wrote - you explicitly >>>>>>>> said he didn't go for (c)
Ok, thanks, you've provided the stupid. Would you like a five minute >>>>>>>argument, or the full half hour?
I said "No surprise that he went for (c)".
You said "Except he didn't, he quite clearly and straightforwardly >>>>>> said "no".
OK, I'm a really stupid person so please expalin in simple terms how >>>>>> you didn't say he went only for (a).
(c) was that the "answer" would be "an attempt to change the subject". >>>>>Instead of changing the subject, he answered the question.
None of the options involved him never saying anything else ever again >>>>>after answering the question.
Ah, ok, I get it now, just another of the manufactured arguments that
you resort to when you have nothing useful to add to the actual
discussion but feel you should say *something*.
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
No, it's time for you to admit that I didn't claim what you said I
claimed but I don't anticipate you doing so even though exactly what I
did say is there in print for everyone to see. That is what makes a
possible error of misinterpretation into a lie - trying to maintain it
even when the error has been pointed out.
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost
disappointed, to be honest.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
No, it's time for you to admit that I didn't claim what you said I
claimed but I don't anticipate you doing so even though exactly what I
did say is there in print for everyone to see. That is what makes a
possible error of misinterpretation into a lie - trying to maintain it
even when the error has been pointed out.
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
Once again, you display your total lack of knowledge or understanding
of the Catholic teaching.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost >>disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>>which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
No, it's time for you to admit that I didn't claim what you said I
claimed but I don't anticipate you doing so even though exactly what I
did say is there in print for everyone to see. That is what makes a
possible error of misinterpretation into a lie - trying to maintain it
even when the error has been pointed out.
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tsjr8klggsd7m0hrsb7odcq2mbrk9q94sa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>> and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>> your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>> with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost
disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So that despite finding childhood memories among people in their 80s
to be less than 100% reliable, you nevertheless wouldn't airily
dismiss them, but actually believe what they said ?
I see.
bb
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>>> which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
No, it's time for you to admit that I didn't claim what you said I
claimed but I don't anticipate you doing so even though exactly what I >>>> did say is there in print for everyone to see. That is what makes a
possible error of misinterpretation into a lie - trying to maintain it >>>> even when the error has been pointed out.
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:2i5n8kpkqil2hm5thf7lfr5dil5djjf8ae@4ax.com...
Once again, you display your total lack of knowledge or understanding
of the Catholic teaching.
Catholic Q/A
Q: Does the Catholic Church teach that using a rubber johnny is a Mortal Sin ?
A: Yes indeed. In "Persona Humana" Pope Paul VI was quite clear that using >rubber johnnies is a mortal sin
Q: What does the Catholic Church teach about what happens to those who die
in Mortal Sin ?
A: The Catholic Church teaches that immediately after death the
souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell,
where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'" *
Q: So that if a Catholic uses a rubber johnny, walks our of their
house and is immediately run over by a bus, then they will go to
Hell, and burn there for eternity ?
A: Yes. Except it works like an MOT. If they were on their way to Confession >when they were run over by the bus then that would be seen as being in >recognition of their Mortal Sin.
Q: So that every time a Catholic uses a rubber Johnny they need to immediately >go to Confession to avoid any possibility of being run over by a bus and going >to Hell ?
A: Yes.
Q: Are Catholic Churches open 24 Hrs a day ?
A: No.
Q :What is a lapsed Catholic; and are there very many of them ?
A There are no lapsed Catholics !. Simply a number of Catholics who among >other things have used rubber Johhnies and stopped going to confession;
and so they are all going to burn in Hell forever ! Along with all
those who got divorced. They're all going to burn in Hell forever
as well !
And all because God Loves Them
Would you like to join ?
bb
quote:
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its >eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state
of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of
hell, "eternal fire."615
unquote
https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_12/iv_hell.html
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:tsjr8klggsd7m0hrsb7odcq2mbrk9q94sa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost >>>disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So that despite finding childhood memories among people in their 80s
to be less than 100% reliable, you nevertheless wouldn't airily
dismiss them, but actually believe what they said ?
I see.
bb
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>>>which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
No, it's time for you to admit that I didn't claim what you said I
claimed but I don't anticipate you doing so even though exactly what I >>>> did say is there in print for everyone to see. That is what makes a
possible error of misinterpretation into a lie - trying to maintain it >>>> even when the error has been pointed out.
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
On 1 Aug 2025 at 18:39:43 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 01:23 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 12:06:52 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 06:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ in response to something - attributions on are PP unclear as to source:] >>>>
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it.
Todal said:
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>>>> happening.
[RH:]
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least *not* *preventing* *them* *invading* -
which would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
So you believe that under the Hitler regime, the German state's
ill-treatment of Jewish people only happened after 6th June 1944.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of Palestinians only >>> happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have*
said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the answer was implicit.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of
Palestinians only
happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have*
said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never
said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the
answer was
implicit.
That's fine. You believe that Jewish people were so badly treated by the German Nazi regime from 1933 onward because they failed to prevent the Allied invasion which began on 9th July 1943 (Sicily) and was much intensified on 6th June 1944 (Normandy).
If that's the way you want to leave it, it's your choice, of course.
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but >which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please?
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please?
On 2 Aug 2025 at 12:45:46 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but
which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please?
There is more than one way of finding a post using message ID, but the following works:
https://al.howardknight.net/
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 12:45:46 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but
which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please?
His link works in Agent -it's the very first post in the thread titled "Double standards log"
Here is what I said in it (quoted from a previous post in UKLM):
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV"
I leave it to yourself to figure out how a note of caution becomes
airily dismissal.
On 8/2/25 12:41, JNugent wrote:
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of
Palestinians only
happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have* >>>> said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never
said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the
answer was
implicit.
That's fine. You believe that Jewish people were so badly treated by
the German Nazi regime from 1933 onward because they failed to prevent
the Allied invasion which began on 9th July 1943 (Sicily) and was much
intensified on 6th June 1944 (Normandy).
Cool, can I have a go?
You believe that Beethoven was an alien, is still alive, and composed
all the Beetle's top hits.
If that's the way you want to leave it, it's your choice, of course.
Quite right, Roger has made his bed...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 12:45:46 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but
which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please?
His link works in Agent -it's the very first post in the thread titled "Double standards log"
Here is what I said in it (quoted from a previous post in UKLM):
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV"
I leave it to yourself to figure out how a note of caution becomes
airily dismissal.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 12:59:49 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 12:45:46 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:His link works in Agent -it's the very first post in the thread titled
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>> with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>> which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but >>> which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please? >>
"Double standards log"
Here is what I said in it (quoted from a previous post in UKLM):
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV"
I leave it to yourself to figure out how a note of caution becomes
airily dismissal.
Read like that to me!
On 2 Aug 2025 at 12:45:46 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding
acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily
dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said
it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise,
which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but
which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please?
There is more than one way of finding a post using message ID, but the following works:
https://al.howardknight.net/
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost >>disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 10:13:59 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:2i5n8kpkqil2hm5thf7lfr5dil5djjf8ae@4ax.com...
Once again, you display your total lack of knowledge or understanding
of the Catholic teaching.
Catholic Q/A
Q: Does the Catholic Church teach that using a rubber johnny is a Mortal Sin ?
A: Yes indeed. In "Persona Humana" Pope Paul VI was quite clear that using >>rubber johnnies is a mortal sin
Q: What does the Catholic Church teach about what happens to those who die >>in Mortal Sin ?
A: The Catholic Church teaches that immediately after death the
souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell,
where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'" *
Q: So that if a Catholic uses a rubber johnny, walks our of their
house and is immediately run over by a bus, then they will go to
Hell, and burn there for eternity ?
A: Yes. Except it works like an MOT. If they were on their way to Confession >>when they were run over by the bus then that would be seen as being in >>recognition of their Mortal Sin.
Q: So that every time a Catholic uses a rubber Johnny they need to immediately
go to Confession to avoid any possibility of being run over by a bus and going
to Hell ?
A: Yes.
Q: Are Catholic Churches open 24 Hrs a day ?
A: No.
Q :What is a lapsed Catholic; and are there very many of them ?
A There are no lapsed Catholics !. Simply a number of Catholics who among >>other things have used rubber Johhnies and stopped going to confession;
and so they are all going to burn in Hell forever ! Along with all
those who got divorced. They're all going to burn in Hell forever
as well !
And all because God Loves Them
Would you like to join ?
bb
quote:
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its >>eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state
of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of
hell, "eternal fire."615
unquote
https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_12/iv_hell.html
You need to start taking your tablets again - seriously.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 12:59:49 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 12:45:46 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:His link works in Agent -it's the very first post in the thread titled
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile,
and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember
your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>> with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>> which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but >>> which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please? >>
"Double standards log"
Here is what I said in it (quoted from a previous post in UKLM):
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV"
I leave it to yourself to figure out how a note of caution becomes
airily dismissal.
Read like that to me!
On 1 Aug 2025 at 10:35:01 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 09:05:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com> >>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Todal said:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just)
two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent
civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the >>>>>>> discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>>>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor >>>>>>> Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>>>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it. >>>>>>
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>>>> happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli
"justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
That doesnrCOt really fit in with my post he was replying to. I thought
Todal might elucidate but he doesnrCOt seem inclined to do so. I get the
feeling that it was something he quite rightly feels strongly about
but didnrCOt really think it through before posting. That is not a
criticism of him; IrCOve done that myself a time or two!
I think your "even-handed" mention of Hamas' atrocities as though having >relevance to Israel's atrocities was a grotesque attempt to blame the Gazan >population for its own misfortunes; does that help to see the relevance of >Todal's message?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tsjr8klggsd7m0hrsb7odcq2mbrk9q94sa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>> and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply >>>>>>> reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>> your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>>> with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>> less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost
disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So that despite finding childhood memories among people in their 80s
to be less than 100% reliable, you nevertheless wouldn't airily
dismiss them, but actually believe what they said ?
I see.
I would interpret "airily dismiss" as implying 0% reliable.
There are 99 other whole number percentages between the 100% accept as true and 0% airily dismiss.
For the values in between I would look to see if other information makes
the memory plausible.
The memory in question seems to me to be consistent with statements made by Israeli politicians recently and the actions of the IDF under the direction of Netanyahu's government. It may not be true in every detail but to me it
is plausible.
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:106koda$10p1v$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tsjr8klggsd7m0hrsb7odcq2mbrk9q94sa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful"
since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>>> and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply >>>>>>>> reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>>> your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>>>> with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>>> less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily >>>>>> dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that >>>>> my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost
disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm >>>> *very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So that despite finding childhood memories among people in their 80s
to be less than 100% reliable, you nevertheless wouldn't airily
dismiss them, but actually believe what they said ?
I see.
I would interpret "airily dismiss" as implying 0% reliable.
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable"
IOW they're 100% reliable when they produce the result I'm expecting .
And less than 100% reliable when they don't produce the result I'm
expecting
When they can then be airily dismessed.
.bb
There are 99 other whole number percentages between the 100% accept as true >> and 0% airily dismiss.
For the values in between I would look to see if other information makes
the memory plausible.
The memory in question seems to me to be consistent with statements made by >> Israeli politicians recently and the actions of the IDF under the direction >> of Netanyahu's government. It may not be true in every detail but to me it >> is plausible.
On 1 Aug 2025 at 10:35:01 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 09:05:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com> >>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Todal said:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just)
two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent
civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in >>>>>>>>>>> Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they >>>>>>>>>>> are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor >>>>>>>>>>> are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians. >>>>>>>>>>
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the >>>>>>> discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>>>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor >>>>>>> Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>>>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original
statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it. >>>>>>
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was >>>>>> happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the >>>>>> Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli
"justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
That doesnrCOt really fit in with my post he was replying to. I thought
Todal might elucidate but he doesnrCOt seem inclined to do so. I get the
feeling that it was something he quite rightly feels strongly about
but didnrCOt really think it through before posting. That is not a
criticism of him; IrCOve done that myself a time or two!
I think your "even-handed" mention of Hamas' atrocities as though having >relevance to Israel's atrocities was a grotesque attempt to blame the Gazan >population for its own misfortunes; does that help to see the relevance of >Todal's message?
On 02/08/2025 01:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Aug 2025 at 12:59:49 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2025 12:45:46 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 01/08/2025 09:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:His link works in Agent -it's the very first post in the thread titled
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>> since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>> and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
"Everyone can see..."
Not from the link your posted below, I'm afraid.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>> your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>> with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
The appropriate thing to do now would be for you to abjectly apologise, >>>>> which is why I am quite certain you will do no such thing.
That "link" does nothing in Thunderbird, I'm afraid.
Could you actually quote the text of the message you are referencing but >>>> which, at the moment, is (conveniently or otherwise) unreachable, please? >>>
"Double standards log"
Here is what I said in it (quoted from a previous post in UKLM):
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable.
YMMV"
I leave it to yourself to figure out how a note of caution becomes
airily dismissal.
Read like that to me!
For you, what does "less than 100%" mean?
Do you say that it means "0%"?
Or does it mean something which would need to be quantified but is
something up to 99% (using only whole numbers for convenience)?
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:30:59 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:106koda$10p1v$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tsjr8klggsd7m0hrsb7odcq2mbrk9q94sa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful"
since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>>>> and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply >>>>>>>>> reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>>>> your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>>>> the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>>>> less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily >>>>>>> dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that >>>>>> my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost
disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm >>>>> *very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So that despite finding childhood memories among people in their 80s
to be less than 100% reliable, you nevertheless wouldn't airily
dismiss them, but actually believe what they said ?
I see.
I would interpret "airily dismiss" as implying 0% reliable.
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable"
IOW they're 100% reliable when they produce the result I'm expecting .
And less than 100% reliable when they don't produce the result I'm >>expecting
When they can then be airily dismessed.
You reckon that is the approach researchers took when investigating
the impact of age on episodic memory?
https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+age+on+episodic+memory
.bb
There are 99 other whole number percentages between the 100% accept as true >>> and 0% airily dismiss.
For the values in between I would look to see if other information makes >>> the memory plausible.
The memory in question seems to me to be consistent with statements made by >>> Israeli politicians recently and the actions of the IDF under the direction >>> of Netanyahu's government. It may not be true in every detail but to me it >>> is plausible.
On 1 Aug 2025 10:18:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 10:35:01 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 09:05:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com> >>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Todal said:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com> >>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just)
two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent
civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in
Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they
are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor
are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan >>>>>>>>>>> civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the >>>>>>>> discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong:
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going >>>>>>>> on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor >>>>>>>> Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it >>>>>>>> for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original >>>>>>>> statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it. >>>>>>>
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war >>>>>>>>> there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was
happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the
Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why
Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli
"justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
That doesnrCOt really fit in with my post he was replying to. I thought
Todal might elucidate but he doesnrCOt seem inclined to do so. I get the >>> feeling that it was something he quite rightly feels strongly about
but didnrCOt really think it through before posting. That is not a
criticism of him; IrCOve done that myself a time or two!
I think your "even-handed" mention of Hamas' atrocities as though having
relevance to Israel's atrocities was a grotesque attempt to blame the Gazan >> population for its own misfortunes; does that help to see the relevance of >> Todal's message?
I should have added that your conclusionflies in the face of what I
said previously:
"I don't buy into *any* Israeli narrative; I have made it clear that
I
consider nothing, absolutely nothing to justify the Israeli killing of civilians in Gaza."
Message-ID: 3eud3kde5qka4cctpcp56uv9h5flmsr4bf@4ax.com
As I have said numerous times, I really wish people would discuss what
I have actually said rather than inventing things to suit their own
agenda :(
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:uoas8khcpg4t65fknr3jf9do0j6u91pocc@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:30:59 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:106koda$10p1v$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tsjr8klggsd7m0hrsb7odcq2mbrk9q94sa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensIn that post I wrote:
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensEveryone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply >>>>>>>>>> reinforces your lying.
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful"
since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I
claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>>>>> and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue. >>>>>>>>>>
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>>>>> your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started
the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST
with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> . >>>>>>>>
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>>>>> less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily >>>>>>>> dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that >>>>>>> my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did* >>>>>>> "airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost
disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity >>>>>> and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm >>>>>> *very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So that despite finding childhood memories among people in their 80s >>>>> to be less than 100% reliable, you nevertheless wouldn't airily
dismiss them, but actually believe what they said ?
I see.
I would interpret "airily dismiss" as implying 0% reliable.
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable"
IOW they're 100% reliable when they produce the result I'm expecting .
And less than 100% reliable when they don't produce the result I'm >>>expecting
When they can then be airily dismessed.
You reckon that is the approach researchers took when investigating
the impact of age on episodic memory?
https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+age+on+episodic+memory
Er no.
But it was most certainly the approach *you* took, along with the
Catholic Church, when confronted with some rather inconvenient
memories.
Quick ! Find some reaearch confirming that they're just making
stuff up !
There must be some, somewhere, surely ?
The Archbishop is supposed to appear on RTE this evening.
Not that. That's monkeys. Just keep looking !
bb
.bb
There are 99 other whole number percentages between the 100% accept as true
and 0% airily dismiss.
For the values in between I would look to see if other information makes >>>> the memory plausible.
The memory in question seems to me to be consistent with statements made by
Israeli politicians recently and the actions of the IDF under the direction
of Netanyahu's government. It may not be true in every detail but to me it >>>> is plausible.
On 2 Aug 2025 at 16:24:59 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 10:18:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 10:35:01 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 09:05:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Aug 2025 at 08:11:44 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Jul 2025 17:52:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>
On 31 Jul 2025 at 18:42:55 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 in message <mq4n8klpqhfl1pkt1m700fch1gir6r905n@4ax.com> >>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On 30 Jul 2025 08:38:42 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Todal said:
On 30/07/2025 in message <7fjj8k5efjqjk090avcoj0ciogk2nc82l6@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 29 Jul 2025 08:30:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 29/07/2025 in message <8kug8kl77u0l028n0j0tnhleqcjpks0lti@4ax.com>
Martin Harran wrote:
You still seem to be under the misapprehension that there are (just)
two
sides involved in the war in Gaza.
There are, at the very least, three. Israel, Hamas and the innocent
civilians who suffer the greatest harm.
I said there are two sides involved in the evil that is going on in
Gaza, The civilians who are suffering so terrible are victims, they
are not in any way contributors to the things that are going on nor
are they in a position to get it stopped.
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to
stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> retreat.
You have come out with some weird arguments in the past but that one
tops the list.
I disagree, that seems clear to me.
Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Hamas.
Its response has been to try and bomb Gaza back to the stone age with no
regard for whether the people killed/injured are Hamas or Civilians.
I think The Todal is saying that by comparison to WWII if the Gazan
civilians want to stop dying THEY should stop Israel from attacking, I'm
sure he'll put me right if needed :-)
I still can't make any sense of that - how could the civilians get >>>>>>>>>>> Israel to stop their attacks?
I think that is precisely the point.
Sorry again but I am still completely lost here. Let me recap the >>>>>>>>> discussion as I see it; please correct me if I have it wrong: >>>>>>>>>
1) I said that there are two sides involved in the evil that is going
on in Gaza and they both need to stop.
2) Todal said I was excluding another party, the suffering civilians. >>>>>>>>>
3) You seem to agree with me that there is nothing the civilians can >>>>>>>>> do to stop the evil that is going on and, although neither you nor >>>>>>>>> Todal have explicitly said so in this particular discussion, I take it
for granted that neither of you think the civilians are contributing >>>>>>>>> to the evil.
If they are not contributing to the evil and they cannot do anything >>>>>>>>> to stop it, then why should I have included them in my original >>>>>>>>> statement?
In regard to the comparison with the Jews stopping the gasssing by >>>>>>>>> making the Allies retreat, the only way I can make that work into the >>>>>>>>> discussion is if Todal is presenting civilian pressure on Hamas to >>>>>>>>> stop their actions as a solution to stopping the evil but I canrCOt >>>>>>>>> imagine Todal making that argument. I certainly would not make it. >>>>>>>>
To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that in the second world war
there were the Allies and the Axis powers, and if the Jews wanted to >>>>>>>>>> stop being gassed in the camps they should have made the Allies retreat.
To me it was an indication that the Jews were powerless to stop what was
happening.
I don't think it goes deeper than that and the same applies in Gaza, the
Gazan civilians are powerless to stop what is happening.
The relevance of that is that many Israeli propagandists and their apologists
have blamed the Gazans for their own failure to repudiate or control Hamas;
and claimed that they therefore deserve to be exterminated for failing to do
so. The parallel being that the holocaust therefore served European Jews right
for supporting the Allies - or at least not preventing them invading - which
would be an(other) absurd and shocking argument.
Yes, it is an absurd and shocking argument. What confuses me is why >>>>>> Todal introduced it when he did.
Obviously to highlight the absurdity and offensiveness of the Israeli >>>>> "justification" for the genocide in Gaza. No?
That doesnrCOt really fit in with my post he was replying to. I thought >>>> Todal might elucidate but he doesnrCOt seem inclined to do so. I get the >>>> feeling that it was something he quite rightly feels strongly about
but didnrCOt really think it through before posting. That is not a
criticism of him; IrCOve done that myself a time or two!
I think your "even-handed" mention of Hamas' atrocities as though having >>> relevance to Israel's atrocities was a grotesque attempt to blame the Gazan >>> population for its own misfortunes; does that help to see the relevance of >>> Todal's message?
I should have added that your conclusionflies in the face of what I
said previously:
"I don't buy into *any* Israeli narrative; I have made it clear that
I
consider nothing, absolutely nothing to justify the Israeli killing of
civilians in Gaza."
Message-ID: 3eud3kde5qka4cctpcp56uv9h5flmsr4bf@4ax.com
As I have said numerous times, I really wish people would discuss what
I have actually said rather than inventing things to suit their own
agenda :(
If we go back to the very original question, the recollection of racist RE on >LBC, I am perfectly prepared to surmise that the caller invented it.
But I--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
very much doubt if his wife would have misremembered such an outrageous >statement, however old she may be. So perhaps this discussion is essentially >futile. That's somewhat reassuring.
On 2025-08-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply
reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be
less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did*
"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost >>>disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
I love the fact that even when you're projecting this hard, your hubris
shows through: I never thought you were better than this. Indeed you've >proven many times over that this is your level.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 13:29:05 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made >>>>>>>>> up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>>and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply >>>>>>> reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>>your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>> less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily
dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that
my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did* >>>>"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost >>>>disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm
*very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
I love the fact that even when you're projecting this hard, your hubris >>shows through: I never thought you were better than this. Indeed you've >>proven many times over that this is your level.
I have told you plainly that the way you interpreted my original post
was not the way I meant it.
Your refusal to accept that is effectively dismissing my explanation
as just another lie by me.
I will leave it to others to decide for themselves who is being
disreputable here.
On 02/08/2025 12:55 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 8/2/25 12:41, JNugent wrote:Of course you can.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of
Palestinians only
happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have* >>>>> said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never >>>>> said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the
answer was
implicit.
That's fine. You believe that Jewish people were so badly treated by
the German Nazi regime from 1933 onward because they failed to prevent
the Allied invasion which began on 9th July 1943 (Sicily) and was much
intensified on 6th June 1944 (Normandy).
Cool, can I have a go?
You believe that Beethoven was an alien, is still alive, and composed
all the Beetle's top hits.
But as you are well aware, I don't. And as you are equally aware, I have never said a word about Beethoven in uk.net.news.moderation.
OTOH, and even though you or another have now snipped it, the PP *did*
say that Jews were mistreated by Germany because they failed to prevent
the Allied invasion(s). It was half-buried within other material, but it *was* there.
If that's the way you want to leave it, it's your choice, of course.
Quite right, Roger has made his bed...
Indeed.
On 8/2/25 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2025 12:55 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 8/2/25 12:41, JNugent wrote:Of course you can.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of
Palestinians only
happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have* >>>>>> said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never >>>>>> said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the
answer was
implicit.
That's fine. You believe that Jewish people were so badly treated by
the German Nazi regime from 1933 onward because they failed to prevent >>>> the Allied invasion which began on 9th July 1943 (Sicily) and was much >>>> intensified on 6th June 1944 (Normandy).
Cool, can I have a go?
You believe that Beethoven was an alien, is still alive, and composed
all the Beetle's top hits.
But as you are well aware, I don't. And as you are equally aware, I have never said a
word about Beethoven in uk.net.news.moderation.
OTOH, and even though you or another have now snipped it, the PP *did* say that Jews
were mistreated by Germany because they failed to prevent the Allied invasion(s). It
was half-buried within other material, but it *was* there.
Ah, there are rules about how much can be made up?
What are they: Something like 50% of words need to come from the other poster. Are
there constraints on rearranging word order, or removing words?
Are these rules published, or are they known only to you?
Thus it could have been argued by the Nazi's, that one justification"
for the Nazi's manifest ill treatment of the Jews was because they
failed to stop Germany's enemies, broadly known as "The Allies"
from launching an attack on Germany.
This is what is known of course as a "Hypothetical Argument". Nobody
is suggesting that any such justification was ever actually put forward
but the parallel is there. *
* Actually it was even worse than that. As the Nazis actually claimed that
it was a world-wide Jewish Conspiracy, which was responsible for all wars
the first place. So it was not what they did "during the war" but their conspiring "before the War" -= as with the Palestinians conspiring with Hamas, which justified their treatment.
On 8/2/25 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2025 12:55 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 8/2/25 12:41, JNugent wrote:
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of
Palestinians only
happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you
*have*
said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never >>>>>> said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the
answer was implicit.
That's fine. You believe that Jewish people were so badly treated by
the German Nazi regime from 1933 onward because they failed to prevent >>>> the Allied invasion which began on 9th July 1943 (Sicily) and was much >>>> intensified on 6th June 1944 (Normandy).
Cool, can I have a go?
Of course you can.
You believe that Beethoven was an alien, is still alive, and composed
all the Beetle's top hits.
But as you are well aware, I don't. And as you are equally aware, I
have never said a word about Beethoven in uk.net.news.moderation.
OTOH, and even though you or another have now snipped it, the PP *did*
say that Jews were mistreated by Germany because they failed to
prevent the Allied invasion(s). It was half-buried within other
material, but it *was* there.
Ah, there are rules about how much can be made up?
What are they: Something like 50% of words need to come from the other poster. Are there constraints on rearranging word order, or removing words?
Are these rules published, or are they known only to you?
On 8/3/25 08:39, billy bookcase wrote:
Thus it could have been argued by the Nazi's, that one justification"
for the Nazi's manifest ill treatment of the Jews was because they
failed to stop Germany's enemies, broadly known as "The Allies"
from launching an attack on Germany.
This is what is known of course as a "Hypothetical Argument". Nobody
is suggesting that any such justification was ever actually put forward
but the parallel is there. *
[snip]
* Actually it was even worse than that. As the Nazis actually claimed that >> it was a world-wide Jewish Conspiracy, which was responsible for all wars
the first place. So it was not what they did "during the war" but their
conspiring "before the War" -= as with the Palestinians conspiring with
Hamas, which justified their treatment.
Yes, people did hold Jews responsible for the war. So why make the "Nobody is
suggesting" comment.
You've seen how JNugent clings on to any slightly ambiguous statement that he can
misinterpret, why say stuff you know to be wrong?
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:106n0s6$1eku0$1@dont-email.me...
On 8/2/25 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2025 12:55 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 8/2/25 12:41, JNugent wrote:Of course you can.
Do you believe that the Israeli state's ill-treatment of
Palestinians only
happened after Oct 1923?
I'd be obliged if you answered my question (about something you *have* >>>>>>> said) first, before I answer your question about things I have never >>>>>>> said!
Then you are doomed to remain forever disobliged. In any case the
answer was
implicit.
That's fine. You believe that Jewish people were so badly treated by >>>>> the German Nazi regime from 1933 onward because they failed to prevent >>>>> the Allied invasion which began on 9th July 1943 (Sicily) and was much >>>>> intensified on 6th June 1944 (Normandy).
Cool, can I have a go?
You believe that Beethoven was an alien, is still alive, and composed
all the Beetle's top hits.
But as you are well aware, I don't. And as you are equally aware, I have never said a
word about Beethoven in uk.net.news.moderation.
OTOH, and even though you or another have now snipped it, the PP *did* say that Jews
were mistreated by Germany because they failed to prevent the Allied invasion(s). It
was half-buried within other material, but it *was* there.
Ah, there are rules about how much can be made up?
What are they: Something like 50% of words need to come from the other poster. Are
there constraints on rearranging word order, or removing words?
Are these rules published, or are they known only to you?
Funnily enough now that JNugent has put it into his own words, Todal's argument is clear.
Even if the point still seems to be escaping him. (See below)
Thus it could be argued, that one "Justification" for the Israeli
manifest ill treatment of the Palestinians, could possibly be
because they failed to stop Israel's enemies, Hamas, from
launching an attack on Israel
Thus it could have been argued by the Nazi's, that one justification"
for the Nazi's manifest ill treatment of the Jews was because they
failed to stop Germany's enemies, broadly known as "The Allies"
from launching an attack on Germany.
This is what is known of course as a "Hypothetical Argument". Nobody
is suggesting that any such justification was ever actually put forward
but the parallel is there. *
From memory small children only start understanding the significance of "hypothetical arguments", and the fact that they might not necessarily
apply in the real world, from around the ages of 5 or 7.
The same also applies to patients with certain Mental Conditions, those
with a particularly low IQ, of around 20. And JNugent.
Who has been successfully acting dumb, and wasting people's time in this
way for at least the last 20 years.
* Actually it was even worse than that. As the Nazis actually claimed that
it was a world-wide Jewish Conspiracy, which was responsible for all wars
the first place. So it was not what they did "during the war" but their conspiring "before the War" -= as with the Palestinians conspiring with Hamas, which justified their treatment.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:106ng82$1hr5h$1@dont-email.me...
On 8/3/25 08:39, billy bookcase wrote:
Thus it could have been argued by the Nazi's, that one justification"
for the Nazi's manifest ill treatment of the Jews was because they
failed to stop Germany's enemies, broadly known as "The Allies"
from launching an attack on Germany.
This is what is known of course as a "Hypothetical Argument". Nobody
is suggesting that any such justification was ever actually put forward
but the parallel is there. *
[snip]
* Actually it was even worse than that. As the Nazis actually claimed that >>> it was a world-wide Jewish Conspiracy, which was responsible for all wars >>> the first place. So it was not what they did "during the war" but their
conspiring "before the War" -= as with the Palestinians conspiring with
Hamas, which justified their treatment.
Yes, people did hold Jews responsible for the war. So why make the "Nobody is
suggesting" comment.
You've seen how JNugent clings on to any slightly ambiguous statement that he can
misinterpret, why say stuff you know to be wrong?
He's a troll.
He relies on people correcting him.
He's been doing it for years; getting people to waste hours of their time.
Although its not as if I'm bitter or anything.
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual level.
Admittedly, though, the above is most definitely one of your shorter and least
meandering posts.
On 2025-08-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 13:29:05 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 22:00:16 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:21:13 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 19:32:23 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-01, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm not surprised that you consider the truth to be "nothing useful" >>>>>>>>>>>since it is such an unfamiliar concept to you.
Sorry Jon but you are the one who seems to have at best a nodding >>>>>>>>>> acquaintance with the truth going by the number of lies you have made
up about me, a recent example being that I claimed one can airily >>>>>>>>>> dismiss peoples' recollections on the basis that they're old when I >>>>>>>>>> claimed no such thing.
Everyone can see that you did say that, so your denial is futile, >>>>>>>>>and your false claim that I am a liar is patently untrue.
Everyone might be able to see it if you could point out where I said >>>>>>>> it. But you can't because I didn't say it. Your handwaving simply >>>>>>>> reinforces your lying.
If you want to make bold predictions like that, you need to remember >>>>>>>your own lies better. You quoted it yourself in your post that started >>>>>>>the thread "Double standards log", posted last Saturday at 07:42:31 BST >>>>>>>with Message-ID <h2u88kd71j3gmgtcfcfqod90i0g7u3op7q@4ax.com> .
In that post I wrote:
"I generally find childhood memories among people in their 80s to be >>>>>> less than 100% reliable. YMMV"
Nowhere there does it say old peoples' recollections can be *airily >>>>>> dismissed* on the basis that they're old.
That is exactly what you are *doing* with that statement.
Has your whole denial of this been predicated on the false idea that >>>>>my claim was that you *said* "airily deny" rather than you *did* >>>>>"airily deny"? That's such a pathetic argument that I'm almost >>>>>disappointed, to be honest.
No, that's you trying to wriggle off a hook of your own making.
It beats me why you can't simply admit that you got something
completely wrong and just move on. That would be a sign of maturity
and self confidence; refusing to accept one's mistake is weakness. I'm >>>> *very* disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
I love the fact that even when you're projecting this hard, your hubris >>>shows through: I never thought you were better than this. Indeed you've >>>proven many times over that this is your level.
I have told you plainly that the way you interpreted my original post
was not the way I meant it.
Haha. Ok, so this is simultaneously a step forwards and a step
backwards. It's a step backwards because it's a new lie - up 'til
now you've not been claiming you were misunderstood, you've been
attempting a flat denial. But it's a step forwards because it's
moving towards quietly dropping your false claim that I lied and
you can try to switch to some sort of face-saving "mutual mistake"
compromise position.
Your refusal to accept that is effectively dismissing my explanation
as just another lie by me.
Ironically no, because that sentence is itself another lie from you.
I will leave it to others to decide for themselves who is being
disreputable here.
I really wouldn't if I were you.
If you like, I'm willing to settle on agreeing that actually you
didn't mean your original statement as strongly as it could
reasonably be interpreted, and that your subsequent lies about me
were a case of you over-reacting and then getting stuck in a loop
inventing new lies to cover old ones, and call that bit bygones.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
< snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual >>> level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
You seem to have missed the point yet again.--
Here's the space for you to write eleven paragraphs in response:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 22:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-08-02, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
I have told you plainly that the way you interpreted my original post
was not the way I meant it.
Haha. Ok, so this is simultaneously a step forwards and a step
backwards. It's a step backwards because it's a new lie - up 'til
now you've not been claiming you were misunderstood, you've been
attempting a flat denial. But it's a step forwards because it's
moving towards quietly dropping your false claim that I lied and
you can try to switch to some sort of face-saving "mutual mistake" >>compromise position.
Your refusal to accept that is effectively dismissing my explanation
as just another lie by me.
Ironically no, because that sentence is itself another lie from you.
I will leave it to others to decide for themselves who is being
disreputable here.
I really wouldn't if I were you.
If you like, I'm willing to settle on agreeing that actually you
didn't mean your original statement as strongly as it could
reasonably be interpreted, and that your subsequent lies about me
were a case of you over-reacting and then getting stuck in a loop
inventing new lies to cover old ones, and call that bit bygones.
Some rather weird logic in there. TBH, I had to check it was really
you that posted it because it sounded much more like something bb
would come out with.
On 3 Aug 2025 at 15:59:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual
level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with your characterisation there; it is puerile and very offensive trash.
On 3 Aug 2025 at 15:59:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual
level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with your characterisation there; it is puerile and very offensive trash.
You seem to have missed the point yet again.
Here's the space for you to write eleven paragraphs in response:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3749193585.a7155d39@uninhabited.net...
On 3 Aug 2025 at 15:59:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual
level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with your characterisation there; it is puerile
and very offensive trash.
It is certainly *inappropriate* for the prime time scheduling which I assume it still enjoys. Such that it could clearly be found "very offensive" to at least
some of the mixed family audiences, who even today presumably watch
prime time together. Certainly the Christmas Specials
Howver one can only assume this continues to be the case because the programme .still draws consistently high ratings
A case of the BBC actually giving Licence Payers what they want
Possibly in direct reponse to their more vocal critics
Having not watched any BBC1 Primetime in years I've watched MBB DVD's
and find it both hilarious at times; and very cleverly put together using the three
live stages.
At around 10 or 11p.m at night
On 03/08/2025 05:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Aug 2025 at 15:59:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Well, we're on the same lines, at least.
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual
level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with your characterisation there; it is puerile
and very offensive trash.
On 03/08/2025 08:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3749193585.a7155d39@uninhabited.net...
On 3 Aug 2025 at 15:59:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual
level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with your characterisation there; it is puerile
and very offensive trash.
It is certainly *inappropriate* for the prime time scheduling which I assume
it still enjoys. Such that it could clearly be found "very offensive" to at least
some of the mixed family audiences, who even today presumably watch
prime time together. Certainly the Christmas Specials
Howver one can only assume this continues to be the case because the
programme .still draws consistently high ratings
A case of the BBC actually giving Licence Payers what they want
Possibly in direct reponse to their more vocal critics
Having not watched any BBC1 Primetime in years I've watched MBB DVD's
and find it both hilarious at times; and very cleverly put together using the three
live stages.
Yes, I expect you would.
At around 10 or 11p.m at night
Whatever.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mfa7ucFrd4bU6@mid.individual.net...
On 03/08/2025 08:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3749193585.a7155d39@uninhabited.net...
On 3 Aug 2025 at 15:59:41 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 03:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mf99rhFmldfU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip >
Do you write scripts for Mrs Brown's Boys?
With an imagination like that, you ought to. It's bang on your intellectual
level.
Mrs Brown's Boys is solely the work of Brendan O'Carroll.
And always has been
And?
Yet another topic you clearly know absolutely nothing about.
I am proud to know as little as I do about puerile trash like that.
I'd have to disagree somewhat with your characterisation there; it is puerile
and very offensive trash.
It is certainly *inappropriate* for the prime time scheduling which I assume
it still enjoys. Such that it could clearly be found "very offensive" to at least
some of the mixed family audiences, who even today presumably watch
prime time together. Certainly the Christmas Specials
Howver one can only assume this continues to be the case because the
programme .still draws consistently high ratings
A case of the BBC actually giving Licence Payers what they want
Possibly in direct reponse to their more vocal critics
Having not watched any BBC1 Primetime in years I've watched MBB DVD's
and find it both hilarious at times; and very cleverly put together using the three
live stages.
Yes, I expect you would.
As if I care.
At around 10 or 11p.m at night
Whatever.
Nobody is forcing to to read all these posts right to the bottom,
you know.
Or maybe they are.
Who's to know ?
You're the one with the questionable taste. You've admitted it.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mfcjntF91g3U4@mid.individual.net...
You're the one with the questionable taste. You've admitted it.
It was you who first mentioned "Mrs Brown's Boys" don't forget,
not me. And you've been backtracking ever since.
Its all there on record.
It is well known to be a low-quality product, aimed at people who think it hilarious
when rude words are uttered.