On 27/01/2026 03:06 pm, The Todal wrote:--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 27/01/2026 11:58, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2026 09:03 am, The Todal wrote:
He made a very reasonable post, and it may be that the only
organisations that want to finance this petty-minded litigation
about trans rights tend to have a religious agenda.
I'm not interested in that. I am curious as whether all Christians
who oppose deliberate killing* and support life are to be classified
as "pseudo-Christians".
You aren't really asking a question, you're delivering a rebuke. The
rebuke isn't deserved. It may be
"may be"? Oh, right.
Does that answer the question?
that "Christian Concern" has extremist, controversial policies
What is extremist about being opposed to abortion for birth control purposes?
In what way is it controversial?
In our lifetime and for centuries before that, the abortionists were
the extremists.
but that doesn't in any way reflect on the many
Christians with mainstream beliefs,
...such as being against abortion for convenience.*
[* Abortion in extremis to save the life of the mother - sorry,
birthing person, was lawful before the Steele Act.]
nor does it discredit all opposition
to abortion. Those people whether religious or not who believe in
conversion therapy (therapy to persuade homosexual people to become
heterosexual) are, of course, batshit crazy and the cause of much
unhappiness.
I didn't address that particular issue ["conversion therapy", as you
well know.
And in answer to what you say, the imagined "rebuke" could easily be deflected by answering the question that *was* asked in the (quite
obvious) negative.
Why go round the houses when there's a shorter route?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mu45j2Fgh2U1@mid.individual.net...
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mu45j2Fgh2U1@mid.individual.net...
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Unless that is, you are also posting under the names of "Monster XL"
or "Detox Patches".
bb
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/l.ulm
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision aboutYour posts were rejected because they were tedious, added nothing
a trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated
out. All of them for "having insufficient legal content", even though
each of them was simply a question about something posted by another
poster in the same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has
passed moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than the post to which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions* were
not liked.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about a >>>>> trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on the >>> 19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by asking
one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the
least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male-
looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?"
As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there
*may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that
there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin
out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any
pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty.
Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in
the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance
is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts,
and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be
demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge.
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates
don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all,
do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some
cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty
at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped
into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy
and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
On 30/01/2026 16:46, JNugent wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision
about a trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been
moderated out. All of them for "having insufficient legal content",
even though each of them was simply a question about something posted
by another poster in the same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has
passed moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than
the post to which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions*
were not liked.
Your posts were rejected because they were tedious, added nothing
useful, illogical and unworthy of publication.
Normally you can do better.
On 31/01/2026 10:56 am, The Todal wrote:
On 30/01/2026 16:46, JNugent wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about a >>> trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated out. >>> All of them for "having insufficient legal content", even though each of >>> them was simply a question about something posted by another poster in the >>> same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has passed >>> moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than the post to >>> which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions* were not
liked.
Your posts were rejected because they were tedious, added nothing useful, >> illogical and unworthy of publication.
Normally you can do better.
They were QUESTIONS.
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about
a trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated
out. All of them for "having insufficient legal content", even though
each of them was simply a question about something posted by another
poster in the same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has
passed moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than the post to which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions* were
not liked.
On 30/01/2026 08:12 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated >>>>>> out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on the >>>> 19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by asking
one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a
hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the
least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male-
looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?"
As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there
*may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that
there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin
out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any
pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty.
Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby
acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in
the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance
is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts,
and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be
demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas
chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge.
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates
don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all,
do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some
cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty
at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped
into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy
and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
Dear me. That is exceptionally ridiculous, even for you.
Todal's response, that you were rebuking Adam, suggests that he thinks Adam's remarks were unsupportable, but that it is rude for you to point this out. In effect, ulm should be a safe space for people to say dumb shit, as long as he approves of it.
On 1/30/26 16:46, JNugent wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decisionYes. I just read the thread, and it appeared to me that Adams statement:
about a trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been
moderated out. All of them for "having insufficient legal content",
even though each of them was simply a question about something posted
by another poster in the same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has
passed moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than
the post to which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions*
were not liked.
---
-a"Christian Concern", an extremist
pseudo-Christian organization that also defends conversion therapy and opposes abortion and assisted suicide.
---
does suggest, to me at least, that "supporting conversion therapy and opposes abortion and assisted suicide" are views incompatible with being
a "real" Christian.
Given opposition to abortion and suicide are traditionally canonical Christian views, this is very surprising, something that should be
queried, to give Adam a chance to clarify.
Todal's response, that you were rebuking Adam, suggests that he thinks Adam's remarks were unsupportable, but that it is rude for you to point
this out. In effect, ulm should be a safe space for people to say dumb
shit, as long as he approves of it.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mu6aunFbgmdU1@mid.individual.net...Your usual meandering, randomised and wide-ranging stream of
On 30/01/2026 08:12 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated >>>>>>> out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on the >>>>> 19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by asking >>> one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a
hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the
least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male-
looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?"
As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there
*may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that
there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin
out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any
pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty.
Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby
acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in
the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance
is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts,
and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be
demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas
chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge.
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates
don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all,
do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some
cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty
at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped
into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy
and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
Dear me. That is exceptionally ridiculous, even for you.
So no answer to the substantive point, I see.
But then of course there wouldn't be
Given your clearly consider yourself superior to the god you claim to worship.
Along with all your fellow rednecks.
Although at least that explains the frequent trips to the US. Standing cheering
outside the prison, with your placards.
On 1/30/26 16:46, JNugent wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision
about a trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been
moderated out. All of them for "having insufficient legal content",
even though each of them was simply a question about something posted
by another poster in the same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has
passed moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than
the post to which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions*
were not liked.
Yes. I just read the thread, and it appeared to me that Adams statement:
---
-a"Christian Concern", an extremist
pseudo-Christian organization that also defends conversion therapy and opposes abortion and assisted suicide.
---
does suggest, to me at least, that "supporting conversion therapy and opposes abortion and assisted suicide" are views incompatible with being
a "real" Christian.
Given opposition to abortion and suicide are traditionally canonical Christian views, this is very surprising, something that should be
queried, to give Adam a chance to clarify.
Todal's response, that you were rebuking Adam, suggests that he thinks Adam's remarks were unsupportable, but that it is rude for you to point
this out. In effect, ulm should be a safe space for people to say dumb
shit, as long as he approves of it.
On 01/02/2026 11:02, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/26 16:46, JNugent wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision
about a trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been
moderated out. All of them for "having insufficient legal content",
even though each of them was simply a question about something posted
by another poster in the same thread.
How can a question on what someone else has written (and which has
passed moderation) be irrelevant or of any less legal relevance than
the post to which it is a response?
No. These censoring actions were performed because the *questions*
were not liked.
Yes. I just read the thread, and it appeared to me that Adams statement:
---
-a-a"Christian Concern", an extremist
pseudo-Christian organization that also defends conversion therapy and
opposes abortion and assisted suicide.
---
does suggest, to me at least, that "supporting conversion therapy and
opposes abortion and assisted suicide" are views incompatible with
being a "real" Christian.
It suggests nothing of the sort. A total logic fail on your part.
There are plenty of loony churches in the USA that try to part gullible followers with their money, and some of them have views that would be unacceptable to most decent Christians in the UK.
If you didn't know that, then ULM is not the best place to find remedial teaching for yourself.
Moronic remarks dressed up as "legitimate" questions may indeed be
rejected by the moderators from time to time.
Given opposition to abortion and suicide are traditionally canonical
Christian views, this is very surprising, something that should be
queried, to give Adam a chance to clarify.
Todal's response, that you were rebuking Adam, suggests that he thinks
Adam's remarks were unsupportable, but that it is rude for you to
point this out. In effect, ulm should be a safe space for people to
say dumb shit, as long as he approves of it.
On 01/02/2026 01:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageYour usual meandering, randomised and wide-ranging stream of consciousness is
news:mu6aunFbgmdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 08:12 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision about
a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated >>>>>>>> out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on the >>>>>> 19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by asking >>>> one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a
hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the
least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male-
looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?"
As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there
*may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that
there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin
out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any
pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty.
Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby
acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in
the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance >>>> is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts, >>>> and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be
demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas >>>> chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge.
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates
don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all,
do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some
cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty
at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped
into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy
and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
Dear me. That is exceptionally ridiculous, even for you.
So no answer to the substantive point, I see.
But then of course there wouldn't be
Given your clearly consider yourself superior to the god you claim to
worship.
Along with all your fellow rednecks.
Although at least that explains the frequent trips to the US. Standing
cheering
outside the prison, with your placards.
wearing a bit thin.
Say something half-way sensible (for a change) and you might get a response.
On 02/02/2026 02:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu9bdaFqpraU2@mid.individual.net...
On 01/02/2026 01:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageYour usual meandering, randomised and wide-ranging stream of consciousness >>> is
news:mu6aunFbgmdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 08:12 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision >>>>>>>>>> about
a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated
out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on >>>>>>>> the
19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by asking >>>>>> one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a >>>>>> hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the >>>>>> least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male- >>>>>> looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?"
As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there >>>>>> *may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that >>>>>> there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin >>>>>> out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any >>>>>>>> pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty.
Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby >>>>>> acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in >>>>>> the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance >>>>>> is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts, >>>>>> and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be
demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas >>>>>> chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge.
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates
don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all,
do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some
cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty >>>>>> at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped
into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy >>>>>> and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
Dear me. That is exceptionally ridiculous, even for you.
So no answer to the substantive point, I see.
But then of course there wouldn't be
Given your clearly consider yourself superior to the god you claim to
worship.
Along with all your fellow rednecks.
Although at least that explains the frequent trips to the US. Standing >>>> cheering
outside the prison, with your placards.
wearing a bit thin.
Say something half-way sensible (for a change) and you might get a response.
Whatever made you think I wanted a response ?
You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun, do you?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mubphdF8np6U1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/02/2026 02:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu9bdaFqpraU2@mid.individual.net...
On 01/02/2026 01:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageYour usual meandering, randomised and wide-ranging stream of consciousness >>>> is
news:mu6aunFbgmdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 08:12 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision >>>>>>>>>>> about
a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been moderated
out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on >>>>>>>>> the
19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by asking
one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a >>>>>>> hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the >>>>>>> least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male- >>>>>>> looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?" >>>>>>>As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there >>>>>>> *may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that >>>>>>> there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin >>>>>>> out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any >>>>>>>>> pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty.
Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby >>>>>>> acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in >>>>>>> the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance >>>>>>> is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts, >>>>>>> and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be >>>>>>> demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas >>>>>>> chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge. >>>>>>>
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates >>>>>>> don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all, >>>>>>> do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some
cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty >>>>>>> at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped >>>>>>> into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy >>>>>>> and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
Dear me. That is exceptionally ridiculous, even for you.
So no answer to the substantive point, I see.
But then of course there wouldn't be
Given your clearly consider yourself superior to the god you claim to >>>>> worship.
Along with all your fellow rednecks.
Although at least that explains the frequent trips to the US. Standing >>>>> cheering
outside the prison, with your placards.
wearing a bit thin.
Say something half-way sensible (for a change) and you might get a response.
Whatever made you think I wanted a response ?
You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting >> onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun, do >> you?
Nobody is obliged to read use UseNet Posts
Neither are they obliged to answer foolish questions...
On 02/02/2026 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mubphdF8np6U1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/02/2026 02:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu9bdaFqpraU2@mid.individual.net...
On 01/02/2026 01:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageYour usual meandering, randomised and wide-ranging stream of consciousness
news:mu6aunFbgmdU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 08:12 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mu4a3bF17g2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/01/2026 05:58 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Three of my posts in the same thread - "Another tribunal decision >>>>>>>>>>>> about
a
trans woman in a female changing room" - have recently been >>>>>>>>>>>> moderated
out.
I think you'll find that it's actually two.
Just to clarify, the previous rejection to those, was 11 days ago on >>>>>>>>>> the
19th.
...and?
That was the one where you attempted to waste everybody's time by >>>>>>>> asking
one of your typically stupid questions;
In that case by pretending not to recognise the difference between a >>>>>>>> hypothetical and a factual assertion.
And thus needing someone to explain it all to you..
Thus in answer to the Todal's original assertion
.....................
"There may also be workplaces where spiteful women feel
they must object to the presence of trans women
[...]
I intended "spiteful" to encompass those women who do not feel in the >>>>>>>> least uncomfortable undressing in front of people who have a male- >>>>>>>> looking body,"
.........................
You thought you'd waste everybody's time by asking the most
dumb-assed question imaginable. Thus
To take up your earlier theme, how many of those can you name?" >>>>>>>>As fairly obviously as Todal was only in a position to suggest there >>>>>>>> *may* be such workplaces and such spiteful women, rather than that >>>>>>>> there actually *were* any, he was in no position to name any.
Was he ?
Although doubtless given the opportunity you'd have attempted to spin >>>>>>>> out that sub thread, with a few more pointless posts.
While as to your original complaint
....
That's distinctly odd. I would assume that any person with any >>>>>>>>>> pretensions to Christianity would oppose the death penalty. >>>>>>>>>Pretentions?
What are you talking about?
As if you didn't know
It's all very simple. Anyone purporting to be a Christian, thereby >>>>>>>> acknowledging an all-knowing all-powerful God, more especially in >>>>>>>> the light of Paul's reference to Christ's specific teaching "Vengeance >>>>>>>> is mine said the Lord" would realise that executing people is
usurping God's power.
If you truly believe in all seeing God, who can see into men's hearts, >>>>>>>> and who will punish their sins accordingly on the day of
Judgement, then you and your redneck Christian chums wouldn't be >>>>>>>> demanding that they be dragged screaming to the electric chair, the gas
chamber, or the gurney; so that you lot could exact your revenge. >>>>>>>>
Because the fact is chum, you and your redneck "Christian" mates >>>>>>>> don't actually trust *Your God* to do the *right thing* at all, >>>>>>>> do you ?
Your secretly suspect that being all knowing as he is, in some >>>>>>>> cases *Your God's* Judgement will be more like those bleeding
hearts psychiatric reports, saying they aren't really all that guilty >>>>>>>> at all. Thus denying you the chance to watch them being strapped >>>>>>>> into the electric chair
Because, as with almost everything else in the USA, both hypocrisy >>>>>>>> and stupidity are being produced on a truly industrial scale.
Dear me. That is exceptionally ridiculous, even for you.
So no answer to the substantive point, I see.
But then of course there wouldn't be
Given your clearly consider yourself superior to the god you claim to >>>>>> worship.
Along with all your fellow rednecks.
Although at least that explains the frequent trips to the US. Standing >>>>>> cheering
outside the prison, with your placards.
is
wearing a bit thin.
Say something half-way sensible (for a change) and you might get a
response.
Whatever made you think I wanted a response ?
You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting >>> onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun, do
you?
Nobody is obliged to read use UseNet Posts
Neither are they obliged to answer foolish questions...
...where "foolish questions" means cross-examination likely to make it necessary for the questioned to change tack, recant or launch an ad-him.
On 02/02/2026 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mubphdF8np6U1@mid.individual.net...
You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting >>> onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun, do
you?
Nobody is obliged to read use UseNet Posts
Neither are they obliged to answer foolish questions...
...where "foolish questions" means cross-examination likely to make it necessary for the questioned to change tack, recant or launch an [ad-hom].
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2026 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mubphdF8np6U1@mid.individual.net...
[.]
You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting >>>> onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun, >>>> do
you?
Nobody is obliged to read use UseNet Posts
Neither are they obliged to answer foolish questions...
...where "foolish questions" means cross-examination likely to make it
necessary for the questioned to change tack, recant or launch an [ad-hom].
That seems spot on to me.
--
Spike
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2026 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
[rCa]
You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting >>>> onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun, do
you?
Nobody is obliged to read use UseNet Posts
Neither are they obliged to answer foolish questions...
...where "foolish questions" means cross-examination likely to make it
necessary for the questioned to change tack, recant or launch an [ad-hom].
That seems spot on to me.
On 03/02/2026 11:16 am, Spike wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2026 02:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
[.]
That seems spot on to me.You write five sides of A4 per post, frequently (if not usually) diverting
onto subjects never under discussion and full of ad-homs, purely for fun,
do
you?
Nobody is obliged to read use UseNet Posts
Neither are they obliged to answer foolish questions...
...where "foolish questions" means cross-examination likely to make it
necessary for the questioned to change tack, recant or launch an [ad-hom]. >>
Of course. I used to do it for a living
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:00:06 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
9 files (16,136K bytes) |
| Messages: | 208,126 |