John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
On 2026-01-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Who he?
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has >> never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial
argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Was that everything your post said? Or have you, for some inexplicable reason, neglected to mention most of it - like you have neglected to
mention most of the rejection message?
As an aside, is what I said really an "ad hom"? Or is it in fact
pointing out that what you said was inexplicable nonsense, i.e.
attacking your "argument", such as it is, rather than you? Opinions
from anyone whose opinion I might value would be welcomed.
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial argument was poorly founded.
Spike's post has been rejected as 'hurtful'.
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed rCyhurtfulrCO.
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an alien >> is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is
a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an
alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed
rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is
a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
On 2026-01-13, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an
alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed
rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is
a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
The bigger problem is that he's simply outright lying; he's pretending
that he doesn't understand that his post was not rejected for (falsely) "noting the use of ad homs".
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an
alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed
rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is >>> a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
The bigger problem is that he's simply outright lying; he's pretending
that he doesn't understand that his post was not rejected for (falsely)
"noting the use of ad homs".
So tell us, just for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of
clarity, what it is that I said was rCyhurtfulrCO?
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
uu-
SpikeAs post has been rejected as AhurtfulA.
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr- 176821562528678.txt>
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176821562528678.txt>
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
uu-
SpikeAs post has been rejected as AhurtfulA.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr- 176821562528678.txt>
On 13 Jan 2026 at 14:56:11 GMT, "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176821562528678.txt>
I have to agree with Mr Ribbens that the concept that there is just one word of (each) god, and that even two theologians who entirely agree on it can ever
be found does not seem convincing to anyone who has lived among humans.
On 2026-01-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an >>>>> alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed >>>>> rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is >>>> a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
The bigger problem is that he's simply outright lying; he's pretending
that he doesn't understand that his post was not rejected for (falsely)
"noting the use of ad homs".
So tell us, just for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of
clarity, what it is that I said was rCyhurtfulrCO?
You're also lying that it was rejected for being "hurtful" when you
know perfectly well that the rejection message said "abusive or
hurtful".
And you're lying when you're claiming you're so stupid that you can't
work out that it was rejected for this bit:
> Another poster once referred to a moveable feast he called a
> "Ribbins point", and it is clear what he meant, as you have
> now resiled from your original suggestion
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
(The irony is, the only other person who used that phrase was so stupid
that they were getting confused between me and JNugent - and I think it
would be a rare point of agreement between me and JNugent that such
confusion ought to be impossible.)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not >>>>>> confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an >>>>>> alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed >>>>>> rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is >>>>> a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
The bigger problem is that he's simply outright lying; he's pretending >>>> that he doesn't understand that his post was not rejected for (falsely) >>>> "noting the use of ad homs".
So tell us, just for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of
clarity, what it is that I said was rCyhurtfulrCO?
You're also lying that it was rejected for being "hurtful" when you
know perfectly well that the rejection message said "abusive or
hurtful".
Logic isnrCOt your strong point, is it?
The message contained no abuse, and so it follows that the rejection was
for it being perceived by someone as being rCyhurtfulrCO.
And you're lying when you're claiming you're so stupid that you can't
work out that it was rejected for this bit:
> Another poster once referred to a moveable feast he called a
> "Ribbins point", and it is clear what he meant, as you have
> now resiled from your original suggestion
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we canrCOt ever refer to it?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on this group*; which again
if you remember,.is unmoderated.
It must have been at this point that you became confused and thought it would be permissable to use the phrase on the *moderated group*; as you
thought you'd done so before.
When in fact you hadn't.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens point" >> on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and it would appear >> that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on this group*; which again >> if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2026 at 14:56:11 GMT, "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176821562528678.txt>
I have to agree with Mr Ribbens that the concept that there is just one word >> of (each) god, and that even two theologians who entirely agree on it can ever
be found does not seem convincing to anyone who has lived among humans.
The problem is not rCOthe word of godrCO but the manoeuvring of those that >would interpret it to suit their own agenda.
For example, there are plenty of people about who can recite the whole 6000 >verses of the Koran, so the word of their god is well known.
ChristianrCOs have an easier time as there are only ten simple rules to >follow, and four of those are about worship.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it around.
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens point" >> on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and it would appear >> that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on this group*; which again >> if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens point" >>> on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and it would appear >>> that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on this group*; which again >>> if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words
liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying?
A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself
to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msrravFku8aU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it around.
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens
point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and
it would appear that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on
this group*; which again if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words
liar or lies multiple times.
In vintage UseNet usage, neither would necessarily be pejorative
A "lie" is simply an untruth; whether uttered knowingly or not.
So that as result "you lie" or "you are a liar", can simply mean
that "you are mistaken"
Although as they can also mean that you really are a liar, and are
really telling lies, neither is likely to pass moderation
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use
of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is
unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words >>> liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying?
A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself
to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that?
On 14 Jan 2026 09:03:52 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2026 at 14:56:11 GMT, "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176821562528678.txt>
I have to agree with Mr Ribbens that the concept that there is just one word
of (each) god, and that even two theologians who entirely agree on it can ever
be found does not seem convincing to anyone who has lived among humans.
The problem is not rCOthe word of godrCO but the manoeuvring of those that >> would interpret it to suit their own agenda.
For example, there are plenty of people about who can recite the whole 6000 >> verses of the Koran, so the word of their god is well known.
ChristianrCOs have an easier time as there are only ten simple rules to
follow, and four of those are about worship.
Yeah, that guy Aquinas must have been a bit of an idiot to take about
1.8 million words to explain something so simple.
On 2026-01-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msrravFku8aU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it around.
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens
point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and
it would appear that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on
this group*; which again if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words >>> liar or lies multiple times.
In vintage UseNet usage, neither would necessarily be pejorative
A "lie" is simply an untruth; whether uttered knowingly or not.
It's something said with the knowledge that it is untrue or with
deliberate disregard as to whether it is true or not.
So that as result "you lie" or "you are a liar", can simply mean
that "you are mistaken"
Not when I use them.
For example, in this thread, when Spike said his post was rejected for
being "hurtful", I said that was a lie, because he knew full well that
that was not the full rejection reason.
But when he said "So someone else made a posting at some point in the
recent past, that passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?"
I merely said it was untrue rather than a lie, because I thought it
likely that he didn't realise that was he was saying was false.
Although as they can also mean that you really are a liar, and are
really telling lies, neither is likely to pass moderation
Indeed. In the moderated group you can't call other posters liars,
no matter what you might intend to mean by it.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it around.
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens point"
on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and it would appear
that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on this group*; which again >>>> if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words >>> liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying?
A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself
to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a misconception, you'd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that?
Thanks for clearing that up.
On 14 Jan 2026 09:03:52 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2026 at 14:56:11 GMT, "Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
---
Spike's post has been rejected as 'hurtful'.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176821562528678.txt>
I have to agree with Mr Ribbens that the concept that there is just one word
of (each) god, and that even two theologians who entirely agree on it can >>> ever
be found does not seem convincing to anyone who has lived among humans.
The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>would interpret it to suit their own agenda.
For example, there are plenty of people about who can recite the whole 6000 >>verses of the Koran, so the word of their god is well known.
Christian's have an easier time as there are only ten simple rules to >>follow, and four of those are about worship.
Yeah, that guy Aquinas must have been a bit of an idiot to take about
1.8 million words to explain something so simple.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use
of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is
unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words >>>> liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying? >>> A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself >>> to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a
misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that?
No.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msrumsFlfujU1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie.
So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it around.
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a "Ribbens point"
on *this group*. Which if you remeber is *unmoderated*; and it would appear
that you yourself have made use of the phrase *on this group*; which again
if you remember,.is unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the pejorative words >>>> liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying? >>> A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself >>> to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a
misconception, you'd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that?
When something that I'd posted in the dim and distant past was met with the response "that's a lie" and I took exception, the usage was explained to me.
Although of course possibly the person who explained it to me was lying themselves.
These mainly being septics, however.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Although in this instance it appears my interpretation is wrong
and you are apparently being accused of dishonesty
Which is a bit strong IMO.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:No.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie. >>>>>>>So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use >>>>>> of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is
unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the
pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying? >>>> A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself >>>> to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a
misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that? >>
Then treat others as you would be treated, might be a way forward
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:No.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie. >>>>>>>>So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use >>>>>>> of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is
unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the
pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying? >>>>> A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself >>>>> to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a
misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that? >>>
Then treat others as you would be treated, might be a way forward
I do.
I assume what you're trying to get at is that you're claiming that one
or more of the things that you've said that I've described as "lies" were
in fact innocent mistakes. Would you like to identify a specific example
of this? Please bear in mind that while my opinion of your intelligence
is not high, there's a limit to how stupid you can plausibly claim to be.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:No.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie. >>>>>>>>So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use >>>>>>> of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is
unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the
pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not lying? >>>>> A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and limit yourself >>>>> to only one or two lies per post, and work on it from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a
misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that? >>>
Then treat others as you would be treated, might be a way forward
I do.
I assume what you're trying to get at is that you're claiming that one
or more of the things that you've said that I've described as "lies" were
in fact innocent mistakes.
Would you like to identify a specific example
of this? Please bear in mind that while my opinion of your intelligence
is not high, there's a limit to how stupid you can plausibly claim to be.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:No.
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie. >>>>>>>>>So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that >>>>>>>>> passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use >>>>>>>> of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is >>>>>>>> unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the
pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not
lying? A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and
limit yourself to only one or two lies per post, and work on it
from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a >>>>> misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that? >>>>
Then treat others as you would be treated, might be a way forward
I do.
I assume what you're trying to get at is that you're claiming that one
or more of the things that you've said that I've described as "lies" were
in fact innocent mistakes.
I donrCOt have to prove that. I rather think that you have to prove what you said was true. And as that involves proving intent, you might struggle somewhat to do so.
Would you like to identify a specific example
of this? Please bear in mind that while my opinion of your intelligence
is not high, there's a limit to how stupid you can plausibly claim to be.
As I said before, when losing, wheel out the ad homs.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted to know what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie. >>>>>>>>>>So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a
"Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use >>>>>>>>> of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is >>>>>>>>> unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the
pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not >>>>>>> lying? A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and >>>>>>> limit yourself to only one or two lies per post, and work on it
from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a >>>>>> misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that?
No.
Then treat others as you would be treated, might be a way forward
I do.
I assume what you're trying to get at is that you're claiming that one
or more of the things that you've said that I've described as "lies" were >>> in fact innocent mistakes.
I donrCOt have to prove that. I rather think that you have to prove what you >> said was true. And as that involves proving intent, you might struggle
somewhat to do so.
I don't have to prove anything to a habitual liar such as yourself.
I was giving you an - undeserved - opportunity to try and redeem
yourself. If you want to refuse it that's your loss.
Would you like to identify a specific exampleAs I said before, when losing, wheel out the ad homs.
of this? Please bear in mind that while my opinion of your intelligence
is not high, there's a limit to how stupid you can plausibly claim to be. >>
I'll bear that in mind if at any point I'm in any danger of "losing".
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted to know
what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time travelling the >> world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-15, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp58mF74l1U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
which wouldn't be allowed even if it wasn't, also, an utter lie. >>>>>>>>>>>So someone else made a posting at some point in the recent past, that
passed moderation, but we can't ever refer to it?
You are becoming confused.
There seems to be a lot of it aroundrCa
It would appear that Jeff Gaines first coined the phrase "a >>>>>>>>>> "Ribbens point" on *this group*. Which if you remeber is
*unmoderated*; and it would appear that you yourself have made use >>>>>>>>>> of the phrase *on this group*; which again if you remember,.is >>>>>>>>>> unmoderated.
Thanks for straightening that out, and without using the
pejorative words liar or lies multiple times.
If you don't like being called a liar you could always try... not >>>>>>>> lying? A crazy suggestion, I know. Maybe start slowly and try and >>>>>>>> limit yourself to only one or two lies per post, and work on it >>>>>>>> from there.
So, if you posted something that could be shown to be a mistake or a >>>>>>> misconception, yourCOd be happy to be labelled as a liar because of that?
No.
Then treat others as you would be treated, might be a way forward
I do.
I assume what you're trying to get at is that you're claiming that one >>>> or more of the things that you've said that I've described as "lies" were >>>> in fact innocent mistakes.
I donrCOt have to prove that. I rather think that you have to prove what you
said was true. And as that involves proving intent, you might struggle
somewhat to do so.
I don't have to prove anything to a habitual liar such as yourself.
I was giving you an - undeserved - opportunity to try and redeem
yourself. If you want to refuse it that's your loss.
Would you like to identify a specific exampleAs I said before, when losing, wheel out the ad homs.
of this? Please bear in mind that while my opinion of your intelligence >>>> is not high, there's a limit to how stupid you can plausibly claim to be. >>>
I'll bear that in mind if at any point I'm in any danger of "losing".
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted to know >>> what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time travelling the >>> world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word. Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted to know >>> what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time travelling the >>> world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word. Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted to know >>>> what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time travelling the >>>> world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word.
Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to >> spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of
people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted
to know what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time
travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word. >>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do. >>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to >>> spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of
people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree
on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted
to know what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word. >>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do. >>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of
people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree
on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What
they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple interaction are you having trouble understanding?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>> to know what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word. >>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do. >>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>> people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What
they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
DonrCOt they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on
what did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed rCymillionsrCO, so you prove it.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies.
I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do. >>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need to >>>>> spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What
they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do. >>>>>>
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What
they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:IrCOm forming the opinion that you donrCOt know the meaning of the word. >>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do. >>>>>>
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>> to know what godrCOs word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, rCLYou'll just need to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>> people.rCY
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What
they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
How have you forgotten already? This is why I told you to go back and
read the context of the quote: whether "non-stun killing is required
by the Koran", in the opinion of Imams.
DonrCOt they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
They must be very large tablets, or there must be very many of them.
Could you please let me know which one contained the phrase "captive
bolt gun", and what it said about them?
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on
what did you base your claim?
Aww, come on. Try using your brain just a little bit. It's not even
on the level of the famous "how many piano tuners in the UK" interview question. How do you think one might estimate the number of Imams in
the world? What is an Imam, what do they do, and where do they do it?
Show me you're capable of a glimmer of intelligent thought.
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed rCymillionsrCO, so you prove it.
Why?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what >>>>>>> you do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll
just need to spend the rest of your life travelling the world,
asking millions of people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >>> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that >> give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
rCLAccording to Pew estimatesrCarCY
rCLSo if itrCOs assumed thatrCarCY.
Nuff saidrCa
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >>> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that >> give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
rCLAccording to Pew estimatesrCarCY
rCLSo if itrCOs assumed thatrCarCY.
Nuff saidrCa
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
You know; as in Jesus "Christianity" Christ.
As there were only ten of them, it shouldn't take you too long to
work that one out.
Maybe you'll have better luck this time.
Answer space
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what >>>>>>>> you do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll
just need to spend the rest of your life travelling the world, >>>>>>>> asking millions of people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about >>>>> "someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would >>>>> need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple >>>>> interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >>>> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the >>>>> world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find >>>>> a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >>> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that >>> give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
rCLAccording to Pew estimatesrCarCY
rCLSo if itrCOs assumed thatrCarCY.
Nuff saidrCa
You seem *deeply* confused. You can't even remember the purpose of this current discussion, and it was you that chose it - earlier today! It's
even still quoted above. I'm getting concerned about your mental health.
On 16 Jan 2026 at 14:30:49 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about >>>>> "someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would >>>>> need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple >>>>> interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >>>> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the >>>>> world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find >>>>> a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >>> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that >>> give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
rCLAccording to Pew estimatesrCarCY
rCLSo if itrCOs assumed thatrCarCY.
Nuff saidrCa
Widespread estimates of the number of mosques in the world are about 3.6 million. Tends to support Billy's estimate.\
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need >>>>>>> to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about
"someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would
need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple
interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >>> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the
world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find
a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that >> give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
"According to Pew estimates."
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
It was a title, not a name.
You knew that, even if only back in the mists of time.
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
On 17/01/2026 in message
<188b8b48afbd7cdb$2860145$2911419$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> billy
bookcase wrote:
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
Christianity comes from "Christ" who,
according to the Vicar of Dibley, is famous because he is the only
person whose name is a swear word.
On 17/01/2026 in message <188b8b48afbd7cdb$2860145$2911419$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> billy bookcase
wrote:
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
Christianity comes from "Christ"
who, according to the Vicar of Dibley, is famous because he is the only person
whose name is a swear word.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
It was a title, not a name.
You knew that, even if only back in the mists of time.
I'm chock full of useless information. Your point being ?
What I'm trying to work out at present is why would they choose to
name their religion after somebody who isn't even mentioned on the
tablets of Stone, which Spike claims form the basis of their religion.
Obviously things would be a lot simpler for you lot, if you only had
to worry about not coveting your neighbours ox, and so on as Spike
claims. As then you wouldn't have to worry about having to go Mass
on Sunday for a start. As that's not in the ten Commandments either.
Or maybe you hadn't noticed ?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msv0cpF6k9vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need >>>>>>>> to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright >>>>>>> to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about >>>>> "someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam
agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would >>>>> need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple >>>>> interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what >>>> did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the >>>>> world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of
thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find >>>>> a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >>> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that >>> give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
"According to Pew estimates."
Well done. You are questioning the source. It's just a pity you don't do it more often.
So that in this example, given what you think you know about Pew, would you say
they are more likely to "underestimate" the number of the Muslims there are, to try to "cover things up" - or are they more likely to "overestimate" the number of Muslims there are, thus giving ammunition to racists ?
What do you think Tommy Robinson would say ?
Of course they would "underestimate" the number of Muslims there are; try and cover things up. So maybe there are even more Maybe even 3 or 4 billion.
So that 2,000,000,000 there,is a most likely a *low* estimate
So congratulations on *thinking things through*; and questioning the source there. Only do try and do it more often.
The 500 stands. As In Brunei, Singapore, and Malaysia anyone who leads prayers in the home is called an Imam So their "congregations" would
number no more then ten or twenty at most. And sometimes even less
So that' now 2,000,000,000 +
---------------------
500
Answer space.
hint: it will need to be higher than 4,000,000
( Just in case the batteries in your calculator have rune out)
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt12kbFh4orU3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
Answer space
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
It was a title, not a name.
You knew that, even if only back in the mists of time.
I'm chock full of useless information. Your point being ?
What I'm trying to work out at present is why would they choose to
name their religion after somebody who isn't even mentioned on the
tablets of Stone, which Spike claims form the basis of their religion.
Obviously things would be a lot simpler for you lot, if you only had
to worry about not coveting your neighbours ox, and so on as Spike
claims. As then you wouldn't have to worry about having to go Mass
on Sunday for a start. As that's not in the ten Commandments either.
Or maybe you hadn't noticed ?
bb
On 17/01/2026 02:33 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
That's what has been attributed to him. There's more to Christianity than Genesis and Exodus, as you well know.
There's no point looking in Exodus for the name - let alone the title 0
of someone not born until c. 0000 AD.
The religion could just as well have been named "Messiahism". And
while that isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments* either,
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msv0cpF6k9vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you >>>>>>>>> do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need
to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to,
you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life >>>>>>>> travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about >>>>>> "someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam >>>>>> agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would >>>>>> need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple >>>>>> interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what
did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the >>>>>> world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of >>>>>> thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find >>>>>> a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of >>>> 500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that
give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
"According to Pew estimates."
Well done. You are questioning the source. It's just a pity you don't do it >> more often.
Oh dear.I'm not questioning the source, rather the person that tried an ad verecundiam approach in an attempt to shore up their hand-waving argument.
So that in this example, given what you think you know about Pew, would you >> say
they are more likely to "underestimate" the number of the Muslims there are, >> to try to "cover things up" - or are they more likely to "overestimate" the >> number of Muslims there are, thus giving ammunition to racists ?
What do you think Tommy Robinson would say ?
Why don't you ask him?
Of course they would "underestimate" the number of Muslims there are; try and
cover things up. So maybe there are even more Maybe even 3 or 4 billion.
So that 2,000,000,000 there,is a most likely a *low* estimate
So far in this discussion we've had:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
But Spike did not claim that Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments. Wherever did you get that idea from?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt24aoFmivhU1@mid.individual.net...
So far in this discussion we've had:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
In many such situations its only ever possible to arrive at
rough estimates by searching out the best available information.
As you're a great one for the clich|-s, even if you appear to
not understand most of the ones you quote quite possibly
you've have heard of "perfect is the enemy of good".
So that rather than try and find out any information for yourself
you prefer to wallow in total ignorance, deriding any people who
do; happy to lie back and swallow any of the lies being fed to
you by Youtube knuckle-draggers and the like.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt24ekFmjk3U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
But Spike did not claim that Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments. >> Wherever did you get that idea from?
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
" In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Ah right. So you're now claiming there were *other* tablets of stone
which nobody else but yourself knows about ?
The ones containing all the "small print"* about the coming Messiah
and the like.
Have you told anyone else about this yet ?
Or is this a world first ?
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt24aoFmivhU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msv0cpF6k9vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word. >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you >>>>>>>>>> do.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people.
Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>>>>
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need
to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of >>>>>>>>>> people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to, >>>>>>>>> you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life >>>>>>>>> travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about >>>>>>> "someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>>>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam >>>>>>> agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would >>>>>>> need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple >>>>>>> interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what
did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the >>>>>>> world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of >>>>>>> thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find >>>>>>> a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people.
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of
500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that
give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
"According to Pew estimates."
Well done. You are questioning the source. It's just a pity you don't do it
more often.
Oh dear.I'm not questioning the source, rather the person that tried an ad >> verecundiam approach in an attempt to shore up their hand-waving argument.
You're confused again
The ad-verecundium fallacy of arguing from authority only applies when citing authorities who
a) have no expertise in that particular field, but only in other fields.
So that citing a weather forecast produced by a highly respected economist would be a fallacious argument from authority. Whereas citing a weather forecast produced by a highly respected weather forecaster wouldn't
b) Have no expertise in any field whatsoever; such as many of the dribblers who post videos on Youtube. Citing any of their nonsense would
be fallacious on that basis. At least except on the basis of offering examples of ill-argued drivel.
Pew are a widely respected research organisation well versed in compiling statistics; and as such are a totally legitimate source.
Which isn't to say they are widely respected by *everyone* There will
always be a tiny minority who refuse to believe *anything* which isn't endorsed by some knucklehead in a Youtbe video
So that in this example, given what you think you know about Pew, would you >>> say
they are more likely to "underestimate" the number of the Muslims there are,
to try to "cover things up" - or are they more likely to "overestimate" the >>> number of Muslims there are, thus giving ammunition to racists ?
What do you think Tommy Robinson would say ?
Why don't you ask him?
It's a rhetorical question.
Based on the assumption
that almost everybody, including
you would. already know what he would say. That there are
too may Muslims already in the World and the UK; that they
breed like rabbits; and that "they", the establishment
including the likes of Pew, MSM etc would try to cover
this up by underestimating their numbers.
This being something else presumably, that you're going
to pretend not to understand.
Of course they would "underestimate" the number of Muslims there are; try and
cover things up. So maybe there are even more Maybe even 3 or 4 billion. >>
So that 2,000,000,000 there,is a most likely a *low* estimate
So far in this discussion we've had:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
In many such situations its only ever possible to arrive at
rough estimates by searching out the best available information.
As you're a great one for the clich|-s, even if you appear to
not understand most of the ones you quote quite possibly
you've have heard of "perfect is the enemy of good".
So that rather than try and find out any information for yourself
you prefer to wallow in total ignorance, deriding any people who
do; happy to lie back and swallow any of the lies being fed to
you by Youtube knuckle-draggers and the like.
bb
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:I find it worrying that someone with an engineering background should reject
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt24aoFmivhU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:You're confused again
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msv0cpF6k9vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msuqi5F5lk4U1@mid.individual.net...
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I'm forming the opinion that you don't know the meaning of the word.
And we still have to deal with your claim that someone who wanted >>>>>>>>>>>>> to know what god's word was would have to spend considerable time >>>>>>>>>>>>> travelling the world and talking to millions of people. >>>>>>>>>>>Nobody needs to deal with that, since it is another of your lies. >>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps you should be forgiven for its use, if you know not what you
do.
But it was you who wrote, regarding the word of god, "You'll just need
to
spend the rest of your life travelling the world, asking millions of
people."
Now justify that absurd statement, if you can.
Go back and read what that sentence was actually in reply to, >>>>>>>>>> you absurd little child.
Quote:
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>>>>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life >>>>>>>>>> travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it, >>>>>>>>>> could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric >>>>>>>>>> light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
HTH
Excellent. So you can see that when you said above that it was about >>>>>>>> "someone who wanted to know what god's word was" that was untrue. What >>>>>>>> they wanted to know was "would every Imam of every strand of Islam >>>>>>>> agree?".
Agree on what?
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
I said that in order to verify the opinion of "every Imam" they would >>>>>>>> need to ask "millions of people". Now, which part of that very simple >>>>>>>> interaction are you having trouble understanding?
As there is no reliable count of the number of imams in the world, on what
did you base your claim?
Here's a free clue: how many Imams do you think there might be in the >>>>>>>> world? Just very roughly, to the closest order of magnitude sort of >>>>>>>> thing. Once you have your answer to that, try and see if you can find >>>>>>>> a connection between it and what I said.
You claimed 'millions', so you prove it.
quote
According to Pew estimates, as of 2020, Muslims made up
about 25.6% of the global population, or roughly 2 billion people. >>>>>>
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims
So if its assumed that *on average* each Imam preaches to a congrgation of
500 followers, using the US definition of billions how many Imams does that
give ? So that's
2,000,000,000
---------------------
500
answer space
"According to Pew estimates."
Well done. You are questioning the source. It's just a pity you don't do it
more often.
Oh dear.I'm not questioning the source, rather the person that tried an ad >>> verecundiam approach in an attempt to shore up their hand-waving argument. >>
Nope.
The ad-verecundium fallacy of arguing from authority only applies when citing
authorities who
a) have no expertise in that particular field, but only in other fields.
So that citing a weather forecast produced by a highly respected economist >> would be a fallacious argument from authority. Whereas citing a weather
forecast produced by a highly respected weather forecaster wouldn't
b) Have no expertise in any field whatsoever; such as many of the dribblers >> who post videos on Youtube. Citing any of their nonsense would
be fallacious on that basis. At least except on the basis of offering
examples of ill-argued drivel.
Pew are a widely respected research organisation well versed in compiling
statistics; and as such are a totally legitimate source.
Which isn't to say they are widely respected by *everyone* There will
always be a tiny minority who refuse to believe *anything* which isn't
endorsed by some knucklehead in a Youtbe video
I can see the mistake you are making, but whether that is by choice or otherwise is known only to you.
So that in this example, given what you think you know about Pew, would you
say
they are more likely to "underestimate" the number of the Muslims there are,
to try to "cover things up" - or are they more likely to "overestimate" the
number of Muslims there are, thus giving ammunition to racists ?
What do you think Tommy Robinson would say ?
Why don't you ask him?
It's a rhetorical question.
Is it?
Based on the assumption
Oh norCanot again.
that almost everybody, including
you would. already know what he would say. That there are
too may Muslims already in the World and the UK; that they
breed like rabbits; and that "they", the establishment
including the likes of Pew, MSM etc would try to cover
this up by underestimating their numbers.
This being something else presumably, that you're going
to pretend not to understand.
rCLBased on the assumption thatrCarCY, used by others for the Nth time in this
exchange, means that basically, yourCOre talking hot air.
Of course they would "underestimate" the number of Muslims there are; try and
cover things up. So maybe there are even more Maybe even 3 or 4 billion. >>>
So that 2,000,000,000 there,is a most likely a *low* estimate
So far in this discussion we've had:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
In many such situations its only ever possible to arrive at
rough estimates by searching out the best available information.
As you're a great one for the clich|-s, even if you appear to
not understand most of the ones you quote quite possibly
you've have heard of "perfect is the enemy of good".
So that rather than try and find out any information for yourself
you prefer to wallow in total ignorance, deriding any people who
do; happy to lie back and swallow any of the lies being fed to
you by Youtube knuckle-draggers and the like.
I fail to see any reason why your manufactured numbers should be given any credence.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt20t9Fm0vkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 02:33 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
That's what has been attributed to him. There's more to Christianity than
Genesis and Exodus, as you well know.
Why do you keep saying "as you well know" ?
It's what Spike says he knows, that we're talking about here.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or
at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
< snip >
There's no point looking in Exodus for the name - let alone the title 0
of someone not born until c. 0000 AD.
see below
The religion could just as well have been named "Messiahism". And
while that isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments* either,
No indeed. There's no concept of any Messiah mentioned at all
in the Ten Commandments is there ?
And from one angle, it's interesting to speculate as to why God should
need a Messiah at all. Except when its realised that the Hebrew
Messiah, as the idea later evolved, isn't a God at all. Or even a
son of God. Just a powerful Jewish king of the House of David
who will rule over the world during a period of Eternal World
Peace.* So its obvious that's a load of old cobblers for a start;
concocted for a short term political advantage by the PR dept
of the House of David. So nothing much to do there with
"Christianity" either.
* According to the Talmud supposed to have started by the year
2240 at the latest.
On 2026-01-18, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt24aoFmivhU1@mid.individual.net...
So far in this discussion we've had:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
In many such situations its only ever possible to arrive at
rough estimates by searching out the best available information.
As you're a great one for the clichos, even if you appear to
not understand most of the ones you quote quite possibly
you've have heard of "perfect is the enemy of good".
So that rather than try and find out any information for yourself
you prefer to wallow in total ignorance, deriding any people who
do; happy to lie back and swallow any of the lies being fed to
you by Youtube knuckle-draggers and the like.
The hilarious bit is that he's conceded his entire argument, but is
still trying to keep going. He derided my original statement as
"absurd", clearly didn't understand it at all despite it being very
simple, repeatedly forgot what it was actually a statement about, and
now he can no longer avoid the realisation that he was completely wrong
about absolutely everything he's reduced to complaining that a figure
that was always obviously an estimate, is an estimate. (An estimate he
has been entirely unable to show is in any way wrong, at that.)
I put more thought into my one throwaway semi-humorous sentence than
he's managed to put into this entire conversation, and he still hasn't succeeded in catching up to where we started. I keep hoping that he's
start showing a glimmer of understanding of... well, anything... but
he never does.
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt20t9Fm0vkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 02:33 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
That's what has been attributed to him. There's more to Christianity than >>> Genesis and Exodus, as you well know.
Why do you keep saying "as you well know" ?
Because the discussion (at present) is about things you DO know, but are pretending (for some reason) not to know.
It's what Spike says he knows, that we're talking about here.
No, it isn't.
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him. That is
a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or
at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
< snip >
There's no point looking in Exodus for the name - let alone the title 0
of someone not born until c. 0000 AD.
see below
The religion could just as well have been named "Messiahism". And
while that isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments* either,
No indeed. There's no concept of any Messiah mentioned at all
in the Ten Commandments is there ?
Should there be?
It's a set of "do"s and "don't"s.
And from one angle, it's interesting to speculate as to why God should
need a Messiah at all. Except when its realised that the Hebrew
Messiah, as the idea later evolved, isn't a God at all. Or even a
son of God. Just a powerful Jewish king of the House of David
who will rule over the world during a period of Eternal World
Peace.* So its obvious that's a load of old cobblers for a start;
concocted for a short term political advantage by the PR dept
of the House of David. So nothing much to do there with
"Christianity" either.
You have clearly either forgotten, or are ignoring, the broadly Christian education you received at primary school.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt24ekFmjk3U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt1eigFj26vU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/01/2026 10:55 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Oh really ?
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments,
then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
But Spike did not claim that Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments. >>> Wherever did you get that idea from?
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
" In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone.
Ah right. So you're now claiming there were *other* tablets of stone
which nobody else but yourself knows about ?
The ones containing all the "small print"* about the coming Messiah
and the like.
I can see the mistake you are making, but whether that is by choice or ignorance is known only to you.
Have you told anyone else about this yet ?
Or is this a world first ?
bb
--
Spike
On 18 Jan 2026 at 11:44:47 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I find it worrying that someone with an engineering background should reject an estimate that is clearly the correct order of magnitude on the grounds that
the figure is not precisely known.
If you want to reject Mr Ribbens' proposal that millions of Imams need to be consulted then a better way to do so would be to propose that a carefully defined random sample of the world population of Imams would probably be adequate. Though an inspection of the number of different opinions found in the sample would probably be required to validate the conclusions.
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him.
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or
at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
< snip >
No indeed. There's no concept of any Messiah mentioned at all
in the Ten Commandments is there ?
Should there be? It's a set of "do"s and "don't"s.
* According to the Talmud supposed to have started by the year
2240 at the latest.
And...?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jan 2026 at 11:44:47 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<very large snip>
I find it worrying that someone with an engineering background should
reject an estimate that is clearly the correct order of magnitude on
the grounds that the figure is not precisely known.
So we can now expand the list of weasel-word qualifiers used in this
thread:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
clearly
If you want to reject Mr Ribbens' proposal that millions of Imams
need to be consulted then a better way to do so would be to propose
that a carefully defined random sample of the world population of
Imams would probably be adequate. Though an inspection of the number
of different opinions found in the sample would probably be required
to validate the conclusions.
You miss the point, but donrCOt worry because you arenrCOt alone in that state.
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
As that is the case, and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely different matter.
In legal terms, itrCOs equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that,
and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men
and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jan 2026 at 11:44:47 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<very large snip>
I find it worrying that someone with an engineering background should reject >> an estimate that is clearly the correct order of magnitude on the grounds that
the figure is not precisely known.
So we can now expand the list of weasel-word qualifiers used in this
thread:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
clearly
If you want to reject Mr Ribbens' proposal that millions of Imams need to be >> consulted then a better way to do so would be to propose that a carefully
defined random sample of the world population of Imams would probably be
adequate. Though an inspection of the number of different opinions found in >> the sample would probably be required to validate the conclusions.
You miss the point, but donrCOt worry because you arenrCOt alone in that state.
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
As that is the case, and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely different matter.
In legal terms, itrCOs equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that,
and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men
and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him.
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or
at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
You miss the point, but don't worry because you aren't alone in that state.
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
As that is the case,
and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or
clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely different matter.
In legal terms, it's equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving
his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that,
and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men
and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
On 2026-01-17, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 in message >><188b8b48afbd7cdb$2860145$2911419$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> billy
bookcase wrote:
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where
did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments, >>>then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
Christianity comes from "Christ" who,
Yes, everybody knows that. But Spike seems to keep saying that all
Christian laws are written on a small number of tablets of stone,
by which he presumably must mean the Ten Commandments.
So the very
reasonable question would be: if Spike is correct, then why would
a religion based solely on the rules imparted to someone who died
many hundreds of years before Christ was born, be named after him?
(It's a rhetorical question - the answer of course is that Spike
is talking complete shit, as always.)
according to the Vicar of Dibley, is famous because he is the only
person whose name is a swear word.
I have a Mr Gordon Bennett on the other line for you.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him.
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or
at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Which is clearly nonsense for two different reasons
a) As has already been explained to you more than once,
the defining characteristic of Christianity, Jesus Christ and
his teachings wasn't even born until thousands years after
these tablets of stone of yours.
b) exactly the same words of god being written on the same
tablets of stone are also a characteristic of Judaism.
Which while it doesn't completely invalid your point,
seriously weakens it.
The possibility that Nugent would want to stick his oar in
and vainly attempt to cloud the issue with his supposedly
profound religious knowledge, is only to be expected.
Either that, or he really is as clueless as you are.
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
snip
You miss the point, but don't worry because you aren't alone in that state. >>
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
Really ? So what language will his word be in ?
Because if we can't understand what language god is speaking, then how
will we recognise it, as god's word ?
For that to be possible, for us to understand god's word when we saw it presumably God would need to speak to us in language we understood.
As that is the case,
which it isn't for the reasons given
and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or
clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely >> different matter.
But there no "then" about it.
The word of god is totally inaccessible unless it's expressed in human language which the prophets can then relay to their followers.
There are no two stages.
In legal terms, it's equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving
his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that,
and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a
situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than
somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men
and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
A totally flawed analogy
You happen to be rather conveniently overlooking the fact that all judgements are open to appeal.
And were you to read the reasonings for some of these
appeals, you will find the appeal judges engaged in discussing the exact interpretation of the law as was applied in previous cases; no more nor less that if they were religious scholars, discussing interpretations of a sacred text
bb
On 2026-01-18, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jan 2026 at 11:44:47 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
<very large snip>
I find it worrying that someone with an engineering background should
reject an estimate that is clearly the correct order of magnitude on
the grounds that the figure is not precisely known.
So we can now expand the list of weasel-word qualifiers used in this
thread:
maybe
most likely
estimated
assuming
clearly
If you want to reject Mr Ribbens' proposal that millions of Imams
need to be consulted then a better way to do so would be to propose
that a carefully defined random sample of the world population of
Imams would probably be adequate. Though an inspection of the number
of different opinions found in the sample would probably be required
to validate the conclusions.
You miss the point, but donrCOt worry because you arenrCOt alone in that state.
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
As that is the case, and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or
clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely >> different matter.
In legal terms, itrCOs equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving >> his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that,
and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a
situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than
somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men
and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
So, as I said before, please direct us to where we can observe the
direct literal unintepreted word of god
and quote for us the part
where it talks about captive bolt guns.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him.
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or
at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Have you read anything about the origin of the tablets of stone?
The reason for posing this question is that you don't seem to have done any research on their matter.
Which is clearly nonsense for two different reasons
a) As has already been explained to you more than once,
the defining characteristic of Christianity, Jesus Christ and
his teachings wasn't even born until thousands years after
these tablets of stone of yours.
b) exactly the same words of god being written on the same
tablets of stone are also a characteristic of Judaism.
Which while it doesn't completely invalid your point,
seriously weakens it.
The possibility that Nugent would want to stick his oar in
and vainly attempt to cloud the issue with his supposedly
profound religious knowledge, is only to be expected.
Sounds like JNugent got under your skin.
Either that, or he really is as clueless as you are.
Yet another ad hom merely reinforces the view that the perpetrators don't really know what they're talking about, and have been reduced to bluster.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
snip
You miss the point, but don't worry because you aren't alone in that state. >>>
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
Really ? So what language will his word be in ?
Ask a prophet?
Because if we can't understand what language god is speaking, then how
will we recognise it, as god's word ?
For that to be possible, for us to understand god's word when we saw it
presumably God would need to speak to us in language we understood.
As that is the case,
which it isn't for the reasons given
and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or
clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely >>> different matter.
But there no "then" about it.
The word of god is totally inaccessible unless it's expressed in human
language which the prophets can then relay to their followers.
There are no two stages.
In legal terms, it's equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving >>> his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that, >>> and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a
situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than
somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men >>> and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
A totally flawed analogy
You happen to be rather conveniently overlooking the fact that all judgements
are open to appeal.
Apart from one source, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten about.
And were you to read the reasonings for some of these
appeals, you will find the appeal judges engaged in discussing the exact >> interpretation of the law as was applied in previous cases; no more nor less >> that if they were religious scholars, discussing interpretations of a sacred >> text
.some of these appeals.
What about the rest, that don't seem to fit your argument?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message >news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him.
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or >>>>>> at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Have you read anything about the origin of the tablets of stone?
Yes and ?
I can confirm also that I've seen the grey granite Stele featuring the
Code of Hammurabi in the BM That's the British Museum to you.
Its along from from the clay tablets
You can just imagine the headlines if they ever found tablets with
just 5 or 10 instructions on them.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 21:14:43 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message >>news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him. >>>
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or >>>>>>> at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Have you read anything about the origin of the tablets of stone?
Yes and ?
I can confirm also that I've seen the grey granite Stele featuring the
Code of Hammurabi in the BM That's the British Museum to you.
Its along from from the clay tablets
You can just imagine the headlines if they ever found tablets with
just 5 or 10 instructions on them.
Or some guy telling them that there are really only two ..
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 21:14:43 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message >>news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him. >>>
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or >>>>>>> at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Have you read anything about the origin of the tablets of stone?
Yes and ?
I can confirm also that I've seen the grey granite Stele featuring the
Code of Hammurabi in the BM That's the British Museum to you.
Its along from from the clay tablets
You can just imagine the headlines if they ever found tablets with
just 5 or 10 instructions on them.
Or some guy telling them that there are really only two ...
On 2026-01-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 21:14:43 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message >>>news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him. >>>>
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or >>>>>>>> at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Have you read anything about the origin of the tablets of stone?
Yes and ?
I can confirm also that I've seen the grey granite Stele featuring the >>>Code of Hammurabi in the BM That's the British Museum to you.
Its along from from the clay tablets
You can just imagine the headlines if they ever found tablets with
just 5 or 10 instructions on them.
Or some guy telling them that there are really only two ...
Matthew 22:37-40?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt6onmFfmfaU3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
snip
You miss the point, but don't worry because you aren't alone in that state.
The point was that for any one god, there will be his word.
Really ? So what language will his word be in ?
Ask a prophet?
But supposing two prophets say god said two different things ?
Or three prophets ?
How do you decide which was "his word"
Because if we can't understand what language god is speaking, then how
will we recognise it, as god's word ?
For that to be possible, for us to understand god's word when we saw it >>> presumably God would need to speak to us in language we understood.
As that is the case,
which it isn't for the reasons given
and not maybe, most likely, estimated, assuming, or
clearly, that is that. If that word is then interpreted by mere frail
humans to have shades of meaning for whatever reasons, that is a completely
different matter.
But there no "then" about it.
The word of god is totally inaccessible unless it's expressed in human
language which the prophets can then relay to their followers.
There are no two stages.
In legal terms, it's equivalent to e.g. a judge in a criminal case giving >>>> his judgement, and then every man and his dog forming an opinion of that, >>>> and as a result behaving in life as if their interpretation of said
judgement is the only one that matters. If one wants to understand a
situation, one goes to the judgement to see what it says, rather than
somewhat wastefully spending a lifetime of world travel asking random men >>>> and dogs their multitudinous opinions.
A totally flawed analogy
You happen to be rather conveniently overlooking the fact that all judgements
are open to appeal.
Apart from one source, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten about. >>
And were you to read the reasonings for some of these
appeals, you will find the appeal judges engaged in discussing the exact >>> interpretation of the law as was applied in previous cases; no more nor less
that if they were religious scholars, discussing interpretations of a sacred
text
.some of these appeals.
What about the rest, that don't seem to fit your argument?
What about them ?
What you have completely overlooked, is the fact that in any jurisdiction there is only one agreed legislature and agreed precedent thus seriously limiting the scope for possible disagreement ;
Whereas, there were numerous prophets all claiming to be speaking
what you laughingly claimed to be the definitive "word of god"..
The
Hebrew Old Testament is a compilation of different prophets; often
making competing claims as to what god actually said; while the Koran
covered revelations made to Mohammed for a period of over 20 years
as remembered and recorded by his followers after his death in the
form of verses which are open to numerous interpretations.
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U1@mid.individual.net...
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:08 am, billy bookcase wrote:
[.]
You attributed "Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments" to him.
That is a false attribution. IOW, that is NOT what he said.
'He' being Spike, of course.
Not what I know, nor what you know, nor what anyone else knows; or >>>>>> at least say they know,
Only what Spike says he knows.
Only what you falsely say he said.
Correct. Thank you.
Here is what you actually posted
" Don't they know what the word of god is?
In Christianity they were written on tablets of stone."
So you're claiming there that the words of god being written on
tablets of stone are a defining characteristic of Christianity
as opposed to Islam
Have you read anything about the origin of the tablets of stone?
Yes and ?
I can confirm also that I've seen the grey granite Stele featuring the
Code of Hammurabi in the BM That's the British Museum to you.
Its along from from the clay tablets
You can just imagine the headlines if they ever found tablets with
just 5 or 10 instructions on them.
The reason for posing this question is that you don't seem to have done any >> research on their matter.
Which is clearly nonsense for two different reasons
a) As has already been explained to you more than once,
the defining characteristic of Christianity, Jesus Christ and
his teachings wasn't even born until thousands years after
these tablets of stone of yours.
b) exactly the same words of god being written on the same
tablets of stone are also a characteristic of Judaism.
Which while it doesn't completely invalid your point,
seriously weakens it.
The possibility that Nugent would want to stick his oar in
and vainly attempt to cloud the issue with his supposedly
profound religious knowledge, is only to be expected.
Sounds like JNugent got under your skin.
Er no. Religion , or at least what he remembers of it appears to be
among Nugent's few specialist subjects. Which he wastes no
opporttunity to dispay,.Thereby giving me the opportunity to mention
some of inconvenient facts he wasn't taught in school.
So I don't think his god would be best pleased in his prioritising
trolling over his eternal salvation somehow, Do you ?
Either that, or he really is as clueless as you are.
Yet another ad hom merely reinforces the view that the perpetrators don't
really know what they're talking about, and have been reduced to bluster.
Its a case of horses for courses I'm afraid,
In your case you've apparently allowed the fact that unlike the 99.9% of the population
who neither know nor care, you've allowed the fact that you seem to know all about
volts, watts and amps to go to your head.
bb
* As did I during those brief periods when I actually needed to know about such
things.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Either that, or he really is as clueless as you are.
Yet another ad hom merely reinforces the view that the perpetrators
don't really know what they're talking about, and have been reduced
to bluster.
Its a case of horses for courses I'm afraid,
Well, rCythe courserCO has changed for a reason best known to Ribbens
from the original rCymillions of people and a lifetime travelling the worldrCO to rCymillions of imamsrCO.
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with understanding.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
So I don't think his god would be best pleased in his prioritising
trolling over his eternal salvation somehow, Do you ?
If you know what god thinks, you're wasted on Usenet.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
So I see it as my responsibility to try and explain these things
to you, as best as I can. Despite your all too evident ingratitude.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 15:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-17, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 in message >><188b8b48afbd7cdb$2860145$2911419$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> billy
bookcase wrote:
So which of the Ten Commandments mentioned Jesus Christ ?
Why ever would you think that?
As god didn't mention Christianity on the tablets of Stone, where >>>>>did they get the name Christianity from ?
The Greeks who wrote up the Gospels, of course.
But if as Spike claims Christianity is based on the Ten Commandments, >>>then what have Greeks, and Gospels got to do with anything ?
Christianity comes from "Christ" who,
Yes, everybody knows that. But Spike seems to keep saying that all >Christian laws are written on a small number of tablets of stone,
by which he presumably must mean the Ten Commandments.
It's worth bearing in mind that the Ten Commandments aren't even the
entirety of the law of Judaism. Nor are they ever presented as such in the Jewish (or Christian) holy writings.
So the very
reasonable question would be: if Spike is correct, then why would
a religion based solely on the rules imparted to someone who died
many hundreds of years before Christ was born, be named after him?
(It's a rhetorical question - the answer of course is that Spike
is talking complete shit, as always.)
Indeed.
according to the Vicar of Dibley, is famous because he is the only
person whose name is a swear word.
I have a Mr Gordon Bennett on the other line for you.
Mr Richard Head would like a word, too.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:11:52 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
So I see it as my responsibility to try and explain these things
to you, as best as I can. Despite your all too evident ingratitude.
I thought you said you'd be better calling him names and leaving it at
that.
PDFTT
On 2026-01-20, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt6onmFfmfaU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Either that, or he really is as clueless as you are.
Yet another ad hom merely reinforces the view that the perpetrators
don't really know what they're talking about, and have been reduced
to bluster.
Its a case of horses for courses I'm afraid,
Well, rCythe courserCO has changed for a reason best known to Ribbens
from the original rCymillions of people and a lifetime travelling the
worldrCO to rCymillions of imamsrCO.
Jesus Christ, all this conversation and effort and I haven't even
managed to get you to realise that imams are people. And then you
have the cheek to complain at the frankly understated observation
that you're clueless.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with
understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with
understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with
understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread.
No you didn't.
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with
understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread.
No you didn't.
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that
would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with
understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread.
No you didn't.
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a
couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread.
No you didn't.
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a >>> couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that
would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point made arises from the conscious or the unconscious.
In the first case that amounts to trolling, and in the second, that is an issue for you to deal with.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place;
only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread.
No you didn't.
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a >>> couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that
would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point made
On 22 Jan 2026 at 16:10:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No you didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place; >>>>>>> only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread. >>>>>
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a >>>> couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you
wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point made >> arises from the conscious or the unconscious.
In the first case that amounts to trolling, and in the second, that is an
issue for you to deal with.
The point you are making is entirely opaque and/or wrong. There is no one right answer to the precise word of god in any religion. Relevant documents may be generally (but not totally) agreed, but different parts of, say, the Koran have different weights and certainly different interpretations. Specifically, there is going to be a very wide range of views about stunning before halal slaughter and when and how it is permissible and by whom the slaughter can be done. So your point definitely eludes me!
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No you didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word."
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter
nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place; >>>>>>> only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god,
conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread. >>>>>
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a >>>> couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point made
What point ?
Your only *point* concerns a totally fictitious "word of god"; which has never
actually existed.
The fact that prophets claimed to be speaking the "word of god" doesn't
mean that they actually were.
They were just making stuff up, possibly as the result of hallucinations
The fact that you apparently still believe there actually was or is a genuine "word of god", the "it" you were referring to above, after having had all this
explained to you at least "four times" now, suggests you out even more
stupid than was previously thought.
Possibly requiring pictures, and large coloured letters, which are unfortunately
beyond the scope of UseNet,
bb
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:What point ?
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No you didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word." >>>>>>>>
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter >>>>>>>> nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place; >>>>>>>> only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god, >>>>>>>> conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread. >>>>>>
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a >>>>> couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you >>>> wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point made >>
Your only *point* concerns a totally fictitious "word of god"; which has
never
actually existed.
The fact that prophets claimed to be speaking the "word of god" doesn't
mean that they actually were.
They were just making stuff up, possibly as the result of hallucinations
The fact that you apparently still believe there actually was or is a genuine
"word of god", the "it" you were referring to above, after having had all
this
explained to you at least "four times" now, suggests you out even more
stupid than was previously thought.
Possibly requiring pictures, and large coloured letters, which are
unfortunately
beyond the scope of UseNet,
bb
To those who understand the point, no explanation is necessary. To those
who do not understand, no explanation appears to be possible.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No you didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word." >>>>>>>>>
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter >>>>>>>>> nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place; >>>>>>>>> only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god, >>>>>>>>> conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread. >>>>>>>
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that
would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ?
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a >>>>>> couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you >>>>> wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't
really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point made
What point ?
Your only *point* concerns a totally fictitious "word of god"; which has >>> never
actually existed.
The fact that prophets claimed to be speaking the "word of god" doesn't
mean that they actually were.
They were just making stuff up, possibly as the result of hallucinations >>>
The fact that you apparently still believe there actually was or is a genuine
"word of god", the "it" you were referring to above, after having had all >>> this
explained to you at least "four times" now, suggests you out even more
stupid than was previously thought.
Possibly requiring pictures, and large coloured letters, which are
unfortunately
beyond the scope of UseNet,
bb
To those who understand the point, no explanation is necessary. To those
who do not understand, no explanation appears to be possible.
I'll say something for you chum. Nothing is ever wasted with you, is it ?
That "Every Boy's Book of Clich|-s" which you got for your birthday
back in 1953, is certainly proving its worth.
You're even at it, on ULM as well.
With anyone else, it might be imagined that the pages would have
fallen out, and the covers come off, by now,
But then, as its probably the only book you've ever owned, with
all writing in, at least, you probably take good care of it.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:45:42 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
Enough.
On 23/01/2026 01:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No you didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? At least not with >>>>>>>>>>> understanding.
Oh yes I have. Especially where
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt4g7jF45h9U2@mid.individual.net...
" The point was that for any one god, there will be his word." >>>>>>>>>>
Which as I pointed out to you at the time is complete and utter >>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
There can be no such thing as a "word of god" in the first place; >>>>>>>>>> only what various prophets have claimed to be the word of god, >>>>>>>>>> conveniently relayed in the language of their adherents
That's exactly what I said somewhere near the start of this thread. >>>>>>>>
This is what you said
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msp4foF70o7U1@mid.individual.net...
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those >>>>>>>> that
would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
As I've already pointed out at least once.
to repeat
"those that would interpret *it*
So what is this *it*, that you are you referring to ?
What is this *it*, that they all supposed to be interpreting ? >>>>>>>>
bb
The clue to the answer to your question is contained in what you wrote a
couple of exchanges ago, which was this:
But I already know the answer !
That's why I'm asking "you", what "you" meant by the word *it* when you >>>>>> wrote
" The problem is not 'the word of god' but the manoeuvring of those that >>>>>> would interpret it to suit their own agenda."
If at this point you admit that you were simply confused and didn't >>>>>> really know what you meant be the word "it" in that context, then
fair enough.
There's no need for you to apologise.
Just admit that you were wrong.
You know it makes sense in the end.
bb
I remain unsure as to whether your apparent failure to grasp the point >>>>> made
What point ?
Your only *point* concerns a totally fictitious "word of god"; which has >>>> never
actually existed.
The fact that prophets claimed to be speaking the "word of god" doesn't >>>> mean that they actually were.
They were just making stuff up, possibly as the result of hallucinations >>>>
The fact that you apparently still believe there actually was or is a >>>> genuine
"word of god", the "it" you were referring to above, after having had all >>>> this
explained to you at least "four times" now, suggests you out even more >>>> stupid than was previously thought.
Possibly requiring pictures, and large coloured letters, which are
unfortunately
beyond the scope of UseNet,
bb
To those who understand the point, no explanation is necessary. To those >>> who do not understand, no explanation appears to be possible.
I'll say something for you chum. Nothing is ever wasted with you, is it ?
That "Every Boy's Book of Clichos" which you got for your birthday
back in 1953, is certainly proving its worth.
You're even at it, on ULM as well.
With anyone else, it might be imagined that the pages would have
fallen out, and the covers come off, by now,
But then, as its probably the only book you've ever owned, with
all writing in, at least, you probably take good care of it.
Dear me...
You really don't accept that other people have a right to take up standpoints
which are not in accord with yours, do you?
On 23/01/2026 03:35 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:45:42 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
Enough.
+1.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:45:42 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
Enough.
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:45:42 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
Enough.
Why? billy bookcase enjoys flogging dead horses.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:mthvm7Ftp3cU1@mid.individual.net...
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:45:42 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
Enough.
Why? billy bookcase enjoys flogging dead horses.
You don't have a relation working as a doctors' receptionist
by any chance do you ? A lady around 50ish; with grey
hair
I'm on BP medication and so have an annual medicine review.
The surgery is within walking distance, so I always attend
in person
This was today
bb: "Hello I need to book my annual appointment, for a medicine review
Receptionist: "Why do you need it ? "
bb: " I have high BP and so I have to have an annual medicine
review; where I sit in the chair and my BP is measured.*
Receptionist: " would you like to come in in-person; or do it
over the phone ? "
* A complete waste of time given monitors are only +U30 or even
less: so there's no real excuse for people not to check their own.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mthu07FtgieU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/01/2026 01:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:10:06 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mthu07FtgieU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/01/2026 01:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
I see bad boy Nugent stirring it.
Please desist, or get a different chat group for your bickering.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:10:06 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mthu07FtgieU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/01/2026 01:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
I see bad boy Nugent stirring it.
Please desist, or get a different chat group for your bickering.
On 23/01/2026 11:20 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mthvm7Ftp3cU1@mid.individual.net...
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:45:42 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
Enough.
Why? billy bookcase enjoys flogging dead horses.
You don't have a relation working as a doctors' receptionist
by any chance do you ? A lady around 50ish; with grey
hair
I'm on BP medication and so have an annual medicine review.
The surgery is within walking distance, so I always attend
in person
This was today
bb: "Hello I need to book my annual appointment, for a medicine review
Receptionist: "Why do you need it ? "
bb: " I have high BP and so I have to have an annual medicine
review; where I sit in the chair and my BP is measured.*
Receptionist: " would you like to come in in-person; or do it
over the phone ? "
Haven't you got an Omron BP monitor kit of your own? A review is certainly feasible over the phone
On 24/01/2026 10:54 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:10:06 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mthu07FtgieU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/01/2026 01:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mth2q0Fp362U1@mid.individual.net...
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtf0fbFejs9U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mte8kgFao75U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mtblgsFa8fcU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mt98p5Fsg96U2@mid.individual.net...
I see bad boy Nugent stirring it.
Please desist, or get a different chat group for your bickering.
I beg your pardon?
The only thing I did was to agree with your (quite valid) point, with a three-character response.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:I've never really been a fan of snipping, though I accept that it does sometimes - but not usually - seem necessary.
On 24/01/2026 10:54 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:No, you also fully quoted and then added to the argument twin's OT
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:10:06 -0000
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/01/2026 01:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Hi billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I see bad boy Nugent stirring it.
Please desist, or get a different chat group for your bickering.
I beg your pardon?
The only thing I did was to agree with your (quite valid) point, with a
three-character response.
nattering.
Snipping is good.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 04:32:18 |
| Calls: | 812 |
| Files: | 1,289 |
| D/L today: |
8 files (5,275K bytes) |
| Messages: | 213,837 |