Them Phonies
-
Well lets see Red are you on to something or just regurgitating garbage... 1. True of every believer in every religion for example from the point of view of any given agnostic/atheist. Non diagnostic of anything. 2. ditto 3. Doesn't sound like me. 4. Definitely doesn't sound like me. 5. Nothing 'strange' has happened to me in years. You must be thinking of someone else. 6. Not really. I let Zepellin and company rant their blasphemy all over the soap box and only occassionly step in and attempt to educate them with reasonable restraint. I haven't condemned anyone to eternal torment in ohh, ages and ages. Even your dangerous crazy neo-politics makes me laugh. 7. True of every belief from the point of view of every unbeliever in anything. Non diagnostic 8. fat_boy and his GW mania perhaps but if you check my posts and articles you'll see I really am a serious software engineer just helping you out with your political and social ineptitude. 9. Hmm, behaves according to beliefs, nice, you wouldn't expect any sane person to do that now would you? 10. You don't know me from Adam and those that do are well aware how characteristic and down to earth my beliefs and behaviours are. No. Your amateur diagnosis is about as flawed as your politics, a delusion fed to you by, you can't quite remember who, which you cling to with irrational vehemence, resorting to personal attack whenever the illogicality of your position is exposed. Remind you of anything?:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Well lets see Red are you on to something or just regurgitating garbage...
No, I'm pretty sure that's you.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Delightful. I'm so looking forward to your explanation of how to achieve 'complete control of the media' without a conspiracy
Leftists are simply, for whatever reason (perhaps because it's one of Marx's commandments), natural drawn to media outlets. To confirm that statement, all you have to do is pick up the local (community) paper in whatever town you're in. It's inevitably filled with pierced chubby chicks ranting about how the establishment is responsible for them not being pretty. Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler. Left-wing political congruity among media outlets is no more surprising than right-wing political congruity among Christians and neither requires a secret shrouded group chanting around a round table in a dark dungeon.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and calling the UKs most senior police officer a crazy son of b**ch is splendid. I don't suppose his public statement yesterday of the 'greatly increased number of conspiracies' he now believes in has reached your part of the world yet.
Well that depends. Is he talking about "conspiracy to commit murder" (which is common) or is he talking about your conspiracies (e.g. the illuminati)? If he was referring to the former, then he's sensible. If he's referring to the latter, then he would be a crazy son of a b**tch.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler.
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler.
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Your madness stems from your insistence that the world follow a particular order. That probably stems from some sort of innate insecurity and the psychological need for the randomness and chaos in the world to be reduced to something simpler.
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along... :rolleyes:
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
There are certainly many Christians who approach Christianity in that way, but Christianity itself is based on the acceptance of the Bible as a historical document.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself.
There is most certainly an innate requirement for religion. That's why even atheists, who condemn organized religion, tend to follow a religious approach to atheism.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
There are certainly many Christians who approach Christianity in that way, but Christianity itself is based on the acceptance of the Bible as a historical document.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
There are certainly many Christians who approach Christianity in that way, but Christianity itself is based on the acceptance of the Bible as a historical document.
Sure, I know that. I just found it funny how you used that idea as ammunition against leftists when it's basically the reason Christianity was created. Speaking of that, if you're interested at all in the origins of your religion, there's a nice book by Peter Watson called "Ideas: a history from fire to freud". He discusses all the latest biblical scholarship and archaeology. He devotes an entire chapter to the foundations of your religion and how it arose. I found it quite interesting and he's impartial about it all.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself.
There is most certainly an innate requirement for religion. That's why even atheists, who condemn organized religion, tend to follow a religious approach to atheism.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
There is most certainly an innate requirement for religion.
For religion? No. That assumes structure where non exists. For believing there has to be something of meaning behind everything? Sure. Even atheists choose some ideals to hold higher than themselves.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's why even atheists, who condemn organized religion, tend to follow a religious approach to atheism.
:zzz:
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
There are certainly many Christians who approach Christianity in that way, but Christianity itself is based on the acceptance of the Bible as a historical document.
Sure, I know that. I just found it funny how you used that idea as ammunition against leftists when it's basically the reason Christianity was created. Speaking of that, if you're interested at all in the origins of your religion, there's a nice book by Peter Watson called "Ideas: a history from fire to freud". He discusses all the latest biblical scholarship and archaeology. He devotes an entire chapter to the foundations of your religion and how it arose. I found it quite interesting and he's impartial about it all.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Sure, I know that. I just found it funny how you used that idea as ammunition against leftists when it's basically the reason Christianity was created.
Uhhh...I thought Matthew Faithful was a conservative Christian. An absolutely insane conservative Christian, but a conservative Christian nonetheless.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speaking of that, if you're interested at all in the origins of your religion, there's a nice book by Peter Watson called "Ideas: a history from fire to freud". He discusses all the latest biblical scholarship and archaeology. He devotes an entire chapter to the foundations of your religion and how it arose. I found it quite interesting and he's impartial about it all.
I have some interest in that, but I'm apparently tasked with becoming a bond trading "expert" for some reason, which requires reading and memorizing all sorts of crap. Don't ask me why.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Hahahahahaha - oh yeah there's NONE OF THAT KIND OF THING in Christianity.... Nope. Nothing to see here, move along...
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
Oh, I'm sure it's part of the human condition. That's what religion and science are all about - trying to understand the world but using two very different approaches. But "random" is hard to define. My business is randomness and I still don't have a good definition of what it is...
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
It can be argued "that kind of thing" is a facet of the human condition itself. Our brain learns by assuming that everything has meaning (for example: what you hear coming out of your parents mouth is assumed to not be random background noise. So the brain learns what it means). With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that nothing is random, it becomes easy to see how we'd look for meaning where there isn't necessarily any. And build whole systems of belief around it.
Oh, I'm sure it's part of the human condition. That's what religion and science are all about - trying to understand the world but using two very different approaches. But "random" is hard to define. My business is randomness and I still don't have a good definition of what it is...
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
But "random" is hard to define. My business is randomness and I still don't have a good definition of what it is...
True.. poor choice of words. It'd be more accurately stated as "With a neuropsychology so predicated on the notion that there's meaning behind everything we see and everything that happens". It's the brain's default position. Even things we ignore throughout the day, the brain had to learn to ignore at some point. The default is to pay attention to EVERYTHING.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
There is most certainly an innate requirement for religion.
For religion? No. That assumes structure where non exists. For believing there has to be something of meaning behind everything? Sure. Even atheists choose some ideals to hold higher than themselves.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's why even atheists, who condemn organized religion, tend to follow a religious approach to atheism.
:zzz:
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
For religion? No. That assumes structure where non exists. For believing there has to be something of meaning behind everything? Sure. Even atheists choose some ideals to hold higher than themselves.
Atheists also crave ideological structure, expansion of their belief system and adherence requirements. It's called secular humanism.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
For religion? No. That assumes structure where non exists. For believing there has to be something of meaning behind everything? Sure. Even atheists choose some ideals to hold higher than themselves.
Atheists also crave ideological structure, expansion of their belief system and adherence requirements. It's called secular humanism.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Atheists also crave ideological structure, expansion of their belief system and adherence requirements. It's called secular humanism.
Some do. I don't, and none that I know do, but I'm certainly aware of it because I see it on the net all the time.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Sure, I know that. I just found it funny how you used that idea as ammunition against leftists when it's basically the reason Christianity was created.
Uhhh...I thought Matthew Faithful was a conservative Christian. An absolutely insane conservative Christian, but a conservative Christian nonetheless.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speaking of that, if you're interested at all in the origins of your religion, there's a nice book by Peter Watson called "Ideas: a history from fire to freud". He discusses all the latest biblical scholarship and archaeology. He devotes an entire chapter to the foundations of your religion and how it arose. I found it quite interesting and he's impartial about it all.
I have some interest in that, but I'm apparently tasked with becoming a bond trading "expert" for some reason, which requires reading and memorizing all sorts of crap. Don't ask me why.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Uhhh...I thought Matthew Faithful was a conservative Christian. An absolutely insane conservative Christian, but a conservative Christian nonetheless.
He's just insane. There's no need to qualify that with anything else. Just "insane". Period.
Red Stateler wrote:
I have some interest in that, but I'm apparently tasked with becoming a bond trading "expert" for some reason, which requires reading and memorizing all sorts of crap. Don't ask me why.
Professionally, or is your wife worried about the finances? If you think bond trading is bad, try options, or futures on options.. X|
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Uhhh...I thought Matthew Faithful was a conservative Christian. An absolutely insane conservative Christian, but a conservative Christian nonetheless.
He's just insane. There's no need to qualify that with anything else. Just "insane". Period.
Red Stateler wrote:
I have some interest in that, but I'm apparently tasked with becoming a bond trading "expert" for some reason, which requires reading and memorizing all sorts of crap. Don't ask me why.
Professionally, or is your wife worried about the finances? If you think bond trading is bad, try options, or futures on options.. X|
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
73Zeppelin wrote:
Professionally, or is your wife worried about the finances? If you think bond trading is bad, try options, or futures on options..
"Professionally" (note the quotes). Bond trading is probably as "simple" as it gets, but it can still be anything but "simple". But on a positive note, I recently found what I believe to be a flaw in a certain major information service's yield to maturity calculations.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Professionally, or is your wife worried about the finances? If you think bond trading is bad, try options, or futures on options..
"Professionally" (note the quotes). Bond trading is probably as "simple" as it gets, but it can still be anything but "simple". But on a positive note, I recently found what I believe to be a flaw in a certain major information service's yield to maturity calculations.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
"Professionally" (note the quotes). Bond trading is probably as "simple" as it gets, but it can still be anything but "simple". But on a positive note, I recently found what I believe to be a flaw in a certain major information service's yield to maturity calculations.
Not uncommon. Take advantage of it - probably won't last long. I find flaws like that all the time - especially in option pricing. Please realize that most trading desks are staffed by twits. Rule #1: most money in the market is made by capitalizing on the mistakes of people dumber than you. Thought what goes on behind the golden doors of major banks was more interesting than that? Nope.
"sh*thead ... f*** off and die" "Keep my words on your sig. I stand by them. (Which, incidently, doesn't make me a sociopath - it's personal.)" (Fred_Smith - animal lover)
-
The most intellectually dishonest piece of trash I have ever read. I want my 30 seconds back.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Sucker! I just read your replies and know better than to.... click.
This statement was never false.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The left must be entirely frustrated that they no longer completely control the media.
The double irony of this from someone who claims not to believe in such 'tinfoil hat' theories and doesn't understand even the basics of propaganda, like owning your oponents voice, is so extreme I'm risking falling off my chair with laughter. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'm risking falling off my chair with laughter.
You find the idea of multibillion-dollar liberal corporations as amusing as I do?
Since CodeProject's privacy policy states that they will not distribute personal information -Eric Speirs, AKA Red Stateler
-
This [^] explains things nicely. The left is going to try to eliminate anyone capable of injecting the truth about them into the national conscious, so that they can inject as many uncontested lies as possible about the opposition. led Mike, Matthew, et al, are perfect examples of the end result. Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist. And that is all the debate should really be all about. The is nothing more complex about it than that. The right is generally honest about who and what they are and the principles they stand for. All the significant lies are coming from the left.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist.
She's pretty much George W. Bush with a vagina. Beholden to big business interests and looking out for the rich. Her national health care programs are actually right of what they should be. Basically, she's Bush with the benefit of hindsight. Also, the party best understood as Marxist is the American Communist Party.
Since CodeProject's privacy policy states that they will not distribute personal information -Eric Speirs, AKA Red Stateler
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Hillary is a socialist pure and simple and she is a leader of a party best understood as Marxist.
She's pretty much George W. Bush with a vagina. Beholden to big business interests and looking out for the rich. Her national health care programs are actually right of what they should be. Basically, she's Bush with the benefit of hindsight. Also, the party best understood as Marxist is the American Communist Party.
Since CodeProject's privacy policy states that they will not distribute personal information -Eric Speirs, AKA Red Stateler
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
She's pretty much George W. Bush with a vagina. Beholden to big business interests and looking out for the rich. Her national health care programs are actually right of what they should be. Basically, she's Bush with the benefit of hindsight.
Its all a matter of perspective, I suppose. But frankly, I don't see how being 'beholden to big business' would stop her from implementing an essentially socialistic agenda. I think there are many aspects of socialism big business would be completely happy with. There is precious little difference between the platform of the democratic party and your average European social welfare party.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Also, the party best understood as Marxist is the American Communist Party.
So, do you guys have a good candidate this time?
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.