Posted by Steve on 10/15/07 04:55

<danielcarrington4@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192415436.799632.151410@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 14, 7:47 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
>> <danielcarringt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1192314042.444297.15850@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 13, 12:51 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
>> >> <danielcarringt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1192296003.510114.17510@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Oct 12, 9:24 pm, "Steve" <no....@example.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Drew" <whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:4710047c$0$4996$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> >> >> > Steve wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Drew" <whoisthatmasked...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>news:470ff10d$0$20614$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> >> >> >>> Damn, Steve. Put your religious beliefs aside and read the
>> >> >> >>> metaphor.
>>
>> >> >> >> my lack of religious beliefs aside, what then, was the metaphor
>> >> >> >> i
>> >> >> >> missed?
>> >> >> >> i thought i showed i understood the metaphore and drew the
>> >> >> >> contrasts
>> >> >> >> at
>> >> >> >> the same time. sup?
>>
>> >> >> > Who's neck is the noose around?
>>
>> >> >> > Who is the recipient of masterfully laid snares?
>>
>> >> >> > What heathen is raging?
>>
>> >> >> > What "murderer" has fallen into his own creation?
>>
>> >> >> the 'heathen' of course. that would technically be the godless or
>> >> >> irreligious. and though really the comment was aimed at all
>> >> >> participating
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the current thread, i pay particular attention to religious babble
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> actually fit the definition. so, aside from condecending to the
>> >> >> entire
>> >> >> list
>> >> >> of participants for our 'raging' - which the religious tend to like
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> do,
>> >> >> condecend that the rest of us just don't 'get it' and their morals
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> far
>> >> >> superlative to other mortals' - i think the analogy is full of
>> >> >> logical
>> >> >> holes
>> >> >> and is merely drivel. now if the kook wants to defend his position,
>> >> >> i
>> >> >> invite
>> >> >> it.
>>
>> >> >> > Pay attention.
>>
>> >> >> yes, please do. why you're jumping in to say i missed the point,
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> i
>> >> >> clearly got it, is beyond me.
>>
>> >> > You're taking it too literally. Think metaphorically.
>>
>> >> > Think back to the days when you read "Canterbury Tales" in school
>> >> > and
>> >> > you'll get it. :)
>>
>> >> omg, eod
>>
>> > I'm government, son, you'll have to school me in what "eod" means.
>>
>> > In my world it usually means "Explosive Ordnance" detection, division,
>> > disposal, deployment .... usually anything that blows up. :)
>>
>> i'm not your son and am probably your senior...please...no need to try
>> and
>> condecend.
>
> Sorry for the "son" - I'm a Southerner by birthright. And after a few
> too many, the drawl comes out to play.
>
> Wasn't my intention to condescend. And I'm sorry if it came out that
> way. Genuinely.
>
>> it means end of discussion.
>
> Ah. Gotcha. I think that I didn't get that is a high sign that I'm too
> obsessive about my work.
>
> After another few, I might just get that out of my system. :)
>>
>> cheers.
>
> BTW, I don't think anyone was implying that you were being too "dense"
> to understand what Giganews was saying. I know I didn't.
>
> Perhaps I'm not as intuitive as I think I am, but I think GN was
> saying that OMH has been, how you say, hoisted on his own petard.

i know...i did get that.

> It wasn't you GP was talking about - it was OMH. HE'S the one falling
> into his own trap. It's HIS neck the noose is around. GN was just
> being ... a bit flowery and poetic in his/her goosing of OMH.

i know. however 'his/her' goosing wasn't 'his/her's. i believe it is a quote
from revelation. even the pit analogy was a quote. the fact that i know this
as an atheist, and seeing it spewed out here, just taunts me to break it
down and ask for its perpetuator to explain it in real terms...to discover
if he/she/it can - as opposed to just pasting everything with a
conventionally 'wise' hand-me-down.

instead, i got 'bingo!' which answered that question for me quite nicely.
;^)


> FWIW, I react the same way you do about being an atheist when someone
> talks about the military - might be because I'm directly affected by
> budget cuts and such. Might be because you can't turn around without
> SOMEONE bad-mouthing it. When you're always expecting to be slammed,
> you tend to expect it. And I often do expect it.

i don't get the budget cut-n-such as a tie-in to bad-mouthing. and i don't
prosthetylize. although a good friend of mine slapped me in the face once
because i said i was an atheist. she had seen me as an ideal christian of
good moral fiber...the statement floored her as inconceivable. we're still
good friends. she just thinks i'm in denial. i just laugh.

> But regardless of what anyone here thinks, I'm not out to piss anyone
> off (unless it's OMH - and even then, it's a fringe benefit). Not you.
> Not Jerry.

i don't get worked up about any of this. that would just take energy
needlessly. you meet all kinds out here. jerry and i had a 'heated' debate
over religion a couple of weeks back. name-calling and the whole bit. we
just don't see eye to eye. if you notice, we get along just fine as if that
thread had never taken place. you and i may be chummy here and be at
eachother's throughts in another thread. it's fun like that. i'm not ever
gunna get angry. even with omh, it's the same. while i think he was a waste
of sperm and egg, i'm not going to work myself into a fuss about something i
can't change...i just understand him/her/it for what it is, and then move
on. i think we all know he's pretty kooky. ;^)

[Back to original message]