Discussion:
In Re Paulie
(too old to reply)
Samuel L. Rusk
2004-03-04 15:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Sorry. I accidentally sent this to Paulie only, not the group. Please
forgive any errors resulting from the copying.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Edwards" <***@nosppaam.w3.to>
Newsgroups: alt.war.mercenary
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: In Re Paulie
Peace on earth? Where do you think you are? alt.fuzzy.bunny? I'm the
most
peaceful person here, an ordained minister these days, and even I
want
to
I never claimed to be a priest. Putting words into others' mouths' is a
big
part of why you are so thoroughly reviled.
"ordained minister" sounds like a priest to me.
I didn't claim to be christian, either. Again, you're making it up as
you
go.
I'm not making it up. I might be misinterpreting what
"ordained minister" is though. I've never heard that
used in any context except christian "priest". I'm not
familiar with the different "titles" christians have
though. You really going to hair split about the
difference between a minister and a priest?
There are some curious gaps in your education, Paulie, and you did, as I
stated, assert this ignorance in jumping to your conclusions. Suppose I had
never heard the term "Australian" outside the context of "Aborigine." Would
you presuppose that any conclusions I might draw about you from that context
would be accurate, and worth arguing? That describes your characterization
of
me quite well.
As for rape, if you can't see the facetiousness of the remark about
violating all of your relatives, and view it simply as it was intended,
as a
declaration of the contempt you inspire, you're more pathetic than even
I
think.
Whatever.
Flippancy AND condescension! That's the attitude that causes your arguments,
even when valid, to be ignored and ridiculed. It's certainly not the way to
engage in rational dialogue.
What makes you think I'm a christian or a priest?
Your words.
No. I said no such thing.
Learn to read, Paulie. Then learn to think.
You'll have to be more specific for me to be able to answer
that.
I'm noting that when you see the words "ordained minister" you read
"christian priest." Further, you assume hatred, pederasty and pedophilia
into that phrase. Coupled with your ignorance of christianity, that attitude
indicates some deep seated prejudice and bigotry on your part.
So far you appear to be excited that you're about to
win an argument about the nuances between minister and
priest. Well done. I concede. You're da man.
No, Paulie, you're da man, and I hope you get help for it. This argument
isn't about "the nuances between minister and priest." It's about logical
analysis and critical thinking. It's about over-reaching conclusions based
in ignorance. Mostly, it's about you.

I once had a patient whose crimes were so horrific (matricide, cannibalism,
necrophilia) to his conscience that he became insane. When not sedated, he
screamed, painful howls of anguish, the sort that tear at your soul. I
visited him each day, 30 minutes before the next round of that incredible
cocktail of sedatives, mood stabilizers and anti-psychotics that were used
to keep him from harming himself was administered. On a good day, I would
get five to ten minutes of semi-lucid conversation from him before the
memories came back, the screaming began anew, and more drugs were given to
him. As a doctor, there was nothing I could do for him. As a minister, I
could only assure him that god loved him and that his crimes would not
follow him into any afterlife. Whether that's true or not, I have no idea,
but it was the best I could do for him. (Of course, I'm part of the "medical
dictatorship.") He wasn't going to get well, ever.

Read the above as parable, Paulie.
BFN. Paul.
SYIT. Sam
Paul Edwards
2004-03-04 18:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Sorry. I accidentally sent this to Paulie only, not the group. Please
forgive any errors resulting from the copying.
I didn't get any email, but it's pretty flakey at times.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
I'm noting that when you see the words "ordained minister" you read
"christian priest." Further, you assume hatred, pederasty and pedophilia
into that phrase.
No, I just find most Christians grossly hypocritical, and
when you provide evidence of being yet another, I
respond accordingly.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Coupled with your ignorance of christianity, that attitude
indicates some deep seated prejudice and bigotry on your part.
I do not hate all Christians. I do not hate Bush, he's a
great man. If you still wish to call me a bigot, go right
ahead, I don't care.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
So far you appear to be excited that you're about to
win an argument about the nuances between minister and
priest. Well done. I concede. You're da man.
No, Paulie, you're da man, and I hope you get help for it. This argument
isn't about "the nuances between minister and priest." It's about logical
analysis and critical thinking. It's about over-reaching conclusions based
in ignorance. Mostly, it's about you.
Sam, do you actually have anything technical/political to
discuss? I certainly aren't interested in discussing me, and
I'm not interested in attempting to win a "priest" vs "minister"
debate, I have *zero* interest in Christianity. I have more
interest in learning about Islam. That's why I read
www.faithfreedom.org
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
I once had a patient whose crimes were so horrific (matricide, cannibalism,
I don't remember committing any crimes ever. I guess that
means I get to go to hell because I'm a disbeliever, and I
get to face your vengeful god.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Read the above as parable, Paulie.
Ok, so I read about a criminal who gets to go to heaven,
while I get to go to hell. That reinforces my opinion of
organized religion/indoctrination, anyway. The Chinese
have a good policy on that. You aren't allowed to
indoctrinate children, you can only attempt to give the
sales pitch to over-18s.

BFN. Paul.
Samuel L. Rusk
2004-03-04 19:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Edwards
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Sorry. I accidentally sent this to Paulie only, not the group. Please
forgive any errors resulting from the copying.
I didn't get any email, but it's pretty flakey at times.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
I'm noting that when you see the words "ordained minister" you read
"christian priest." Further, you assume hatred, pederasty and pedophilia
into that phrase.
No, I just find most Christians grossly hypocritical, and
when you provide evidence of being yet another, I
respond accordingly.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Coupled with your ignorance of christianity, that attitude
indicates some deep seated prejudice and bigotry on your part.
I do not hate all Christians. I do not hate Bush, he's a
great man. If you still wish to call me a bigot, go right
ahead, I don't care.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
So far you appear to be excited that you're about to
win an argument about the nuances between minister and
priest. Well done. I concede. You're da man.
No, Paulie, you're da man, and I hope you get help for it. This argument
isn't about "the nuances between minister and priest." It's about logical
analysis and critical thinking. It's about over-reaching conclusions based
in ignorance. Mostly, it's about you.
Sam, do you actually have anything technical/political to
discuss? I certainly aren't interested in discussing me, and
I'm not interested in attempting to win a "priest" vs "minister"
debate, I have *zero* interest in Christianity. I have more
interest in learning about Islam. That's why I read
www.faithfreedom.org
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
I once had a patient whose crimes were so horrific (matricide, cannibalism,
I don't remember committing any crimes ever. I guess that
means I get to go to hell because I'm a disbeliever, and I
get to face your vengeful god.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Read the above as parable, Paulie.
Ok, so I read about a criminal who gets to go to heaven,
while I get to go to hell. That reinforces my opinion of
organized religion/indoctrination, anyway. The Chinese
have a good policy on that. You aren't allowed to
indoctrinate children, you can only attempt to give the
sales pitch to over-18s.
BFN. Paul.
Big, deep sigh. Again. Read things, Paulie. Get an education, get a grip,
get something. Pay attention to the words.

Did I say jack shit about a vengeful god? How, in your tiny little mind, did
it become a vengeful god, if I even mentioned it?

It's interesting to note that you have an opinion on religion. You certainly
haven't shown that you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, past
the URL you often post. Well, yes, you have said you have "Zero" interest in
christianity. I'm not terribly interested either, except for the fact that
it's the single most important social movement of the past 2000 years. I'm
not terribly interested in air either, except for the fact that I have to
breathe it every day.

We are discussing you, Paulie. You are the essence of your posts. As for
technical/political topics, hell, when I agreed with you last year, though
using different terminology, you attacked me. Your anger is such that you
can't see support when it comes your way. For your sake I hope you are
eventually able to overcome that.

Given that you are unable to answer questions put to you in the form of
argument, I'll ask you directly: What makes you think I'm christian? Please
cite examples, with rationale, if you can. TRY to stay on point, OK?

If not, then I'm done.

Finally, this group is populated by old soldiers. Certainly we don't run off
those with valid points, but we respect those who've gone in harm's way.
Have you, Paulie? Not that it would invalidate your points, but it would, as
my wife would say in court, speak to your credibility.

Dr Sam
Paul Edwards
2004-03-04 19:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Did I say jack shit about a vengeful god?
No, did I say you did?
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
How, in your tiny little mind, did
it become a vengeful god, if I even mentioned it?
That is my definition of someone who would send someone
to hell just because they were skeptical about some documents.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
It's interesting to note that you have an opinion on religion. You certainly
haven't shown that you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, past
the URL you often post. Well, yes, you have said you have "Zero" interest in
christianity. I'm not terribly interested either, except for the fact that
it's the single most important social movement of the past 2000 years. I'm
Along with Nazism and Communism. So?
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
not terribly interested in air either, except for the fact that I have to
breathe it every day.
You don't need Christianity.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
We are discussing you, Paulie. You are the essence of your posts. As for
technical/political topics, hell, when I agreed with you last year, though
using different terminology, you attacked me. Your anger is such that you
can't see support when it comes your way. For your sake I hope you are
eventually able to overcome that.
Your interpretation of the events is most likely incorrect,
e.g. categorizing me as supporting American hegemony,
something which doesn't even exist.

If you give me a specific quote, I will elaborate on what
is causing you so much consternation.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Given that you are unable to answer questions put to you in the form of
argument, I'll ask you directly: What makes you think I'm christian?
My understanding of "ordained minister".
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Please
cite examples, with rationale, if you can. TRY to stay on point, OK?
All my life, that term has been associated with Christianity.
Also, most English-speakers are Christians. It's not
conclusive evidence, but it is what led me to the ASSUMPTION.

If the assumption was incorrect, here, read this:

Sam, I am sorry for calling you a Christian. I didn't mean
to offend you. It was a misunderstanding. Now that you
have explained to me that you're not, please accept my
apologies. I hope that we can move past this misjudgement
of mine into the future. I accept full responsibility.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
If not, then I'm done.
Finally, this group is populated by old soldiers. Certainly we don't run off
those with valid points, but we respect those who've gone in harm's way.
So do I. I don't respect them when they turn out to be no
different to terrorists other than by accident they happened
to join the right side.
Post by Samuel L. Rusk
Have you, Paulie? Not that it would invalidate your points, but it would, as
my wife would say in court, speak to your credibility.
Not in the connotation you are talking about. The fact that
I predicted Afghanistan would be over shortly, just days
before it was, while "accepted wisdom" in this newsgroup
suggested it would be a fiasco like the Soviet invasion,
would suggest that sometimes it is good to have some input
from those "outside the industry", to give an opportunity to
question some closely-held beliefs.

BFN. Paul.
Execrisk
2004-03-04 22:13:09 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Paul Edwards
All my life, that term has been associated with Christianity.
Also, most English-speakers are Christians. It's not
conclusive evidence, but it is what led me to the ASSUMPTION.
And of course you will have statistics to back this up wont you paul?
This is a pretty far fetched statement even for you .

snip
Post by Paul Edwards
Not in the connotation you are talking about. The fact that
I predicted Afghanistan would be over shortly, just days
before it was, while "accepted wisdom" in this newsgroup
suggested it would be a fiasco like the Soviet invasion,
would suggest that sometimes it is good to have some input
from those "outside the industry", to give an opportunity to
question some closely-held beliefs.
BFN. Paul.
Now I could be wrontg but last I heard there were still soldiers
running around in the hills getting shot at on a daily basis .
Now from memory and I could be wrong here as well but OBL is still in
hideing
somewheres, so tell me how is it that you can claim that Afganistan is
actually over?


F
Paul Edwards
2004-03-04 22:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Execrisk
Post by Paul Edwards
All my life, that term has been associated with Christianity.
Also, most English-speakers are Christians. It's not
conclusive evidence, but it is what led me to the ASSUMPTION.
And of course you will have statistics to back this up wont you paul?
This is a pretty far fetched statement even for you .
Yes, the statistics I have seen in the English-speaking
countries show about 70% Christianity. If you would
like to tell me which country you actually doubt (UK,
US, Australia, NZ or Canada), I will look up the exact
figures just for you!
Post by Execrisk
Now I could be wrontg but last I heard there were still soldiers
running around in the hills getting shot at on a daily basis .
Correct. This is now acting as glorified policeman
though. The war was to topple the government. That
took 5 weeks. The policing operation will never end.
The Afghans will be trained to take over that role
eventually. It's certainly taking a long time.
Post by Execrisk
Now from memory and I could be wrong here as well but OBL is still in
hideing
OBL is a manhunt. They do manhunts in USA too.
Post by Execrisk
somewheres, so tell me how is it that you can claim that Afganistan is
actually over?
I've explained this 100 times already. Which bit
don't you understand? Let's go through it once more,
slowly, then that's the end of it, OK?

BFN. Paul.
Execrisk
2004-03-07 22:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Edwards
Post by Execrisk
Post by Paul Edwards
All my life, that term has been associated with Christianity.
Also, most English-speakers are Christians. It's not
conclusive evidence, but it is what led me to the ASSUMPTION.
And of course you will have statistics to back this up wont you paul?
This is a pretty far fetched statement even for you .
Yes, the statistics I have seen in the English-speaking
countries show about 70% Christianity. If you would
like to tell me which country you actually doubt (UK,
US, Australia, NZ or Canada), I will look up the exact
figures just for you!
why not list them all ?
and make them from credible sites not some of the bullshit ones you list.
Post by Paul Edwards
Post by Execrisk
Now I could be wrontg but last I heard there were still soldiers
running around in the hills getting shot at on a daily basis .
Correct. This is now acting as glorified policeman
though. The war was to topple the government. That
took 5 weeks. The policing operation will never end.
The Afghans will be trained to take over that role
eventually. It's certainly taking a long time.
I dont seem to remember GB stating he was going into afganistan to topple
gvts .
Im pretty sure he stated he was going in to catch/ kill obl.

Perhaps you should study some history then.
The russians took Afganistan in a short period of time it was staying there
that cost them so many lives and forced them to pull out.
So your statement that Americas occupation of Afganistan is nothing like the
russian one is fundamentaly incorrect.
Post by Paul Edwards
Post by Execrisk
Now from memory and I could be wrong here as well but OBL is still in
hideing
OBL is a manhunt. They do manhunts in USA too.
Yes they do manhunts but they dont use soldiers and gunships to do them do
they.
Post by Paul Edwards
Post by Execrisk
somewheres, so tell me how is it that you can claim that Afganistan is
actually over?
I've explained this 100 times already. Which bit
don't you understand? Let's go through it once more,
slowly, then that's the end of it, OK?
BFN. Paul.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...