Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle. - OS2

This is a discussion on Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle. - OS2 ; Archie Leach wrote: >cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > >>In article "Andrew B. >>Chung, MD/PhD" writes: >>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote: >>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote: >>> > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

  1. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Archie Leach wrote:
    >cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om> "Andrew B.
    >>Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"

    >wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think bible

    >quotes are indeed
    >>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible evidence at

    >all.
    >>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists only because

    >atheists don't
    >>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system. LOL
    >>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was 'falsified by

    >the lying pen
    >>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>> > > > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving long ago

    >with the advent
    >>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>> > > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written, then it is the

    >truth?
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the original.
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling the truth.
    >>> > > > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the advent of

    >the printing
    >>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so that you can

    >be confident
    >>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any

    >falsification by "the
    >>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>> > > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of lying pens of
    >>> > > > > > > scribes.
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one lie.
    >>> > > > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not rely on

    >the "lying pen
    >>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>> > > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from whole

    >cloth.
    >>> > > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did not happen by

    >chance
    >>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the errors from the

    >lying
    >>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of

    >God?
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>> > > > > >
    >>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>> > > > >
    >>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>> > > >
    >>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third and
    >>> > > > Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does not include
    >>> > > > those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the Dragon;
    >>> > > > or the consensus print run which has none of these?
    >>> > >
    >>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all print runs.
    >>> >
    >>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>
    >>> There is for the discerning.

    >>
    >>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>
    >>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.

    >
    >Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >address?


    Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with outright
    lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly "digests", Wee
    Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions much like St. Chung.
    The main differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an
    obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his
    enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the
    HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.

    As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting to
    demon.local now.

    [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]

    Hi, Tholen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  2. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote:

    >Archie Leach wrote:
    >>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om> "Andrew B.
    >>>Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"

    >>wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think bible

    >>quotes are indeed
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible evidence at

    >>all.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists only because

    >>atheists don't
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system. LOL
    >>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was 'falsified by

    >>the lying pen
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving long ago

    >>with the advent
    >>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written, then it is the

    >>truth?
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the original.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling the truth.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the advent of

    >>the printing
    >>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so that you can

    >>be confident
    >>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any

    >>falsification by "the
    >>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of lying pens of
    >>>> > > > > > > scribes.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one lie.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not rely on

    >>the "lying pen
    >>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from whole

    >>cloth.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did not happen by

    >>chance
    >>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the errors from the

    >>lying
    >>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of

    >>God?
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>> > > > >
    >>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>> > > >
    >>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third and
    >>>> > > > Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does not include
    >>>> > > > those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the Dragon;
    >>>> > > > or the consensus print run which has none of these?
    >>>> > >
    >>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all print runs.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>
    >>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>
    >>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.

    >>
    >>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>address?

    >
    >Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with outright
    >lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly "digests", Wee
    >Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions much like St. Chung.
    >The main differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an
    >obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his
    >enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the
    >HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >
    >As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting to
    >demon.local now.
    >
    >[++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >
    >Hi, Tholen!


    Meanwhile, I've been continuing to follow alt.religion.angels . While
    Chief Thracian has essentially disappeared, alas (apparently still
    researching and collecting "Evidence" to forward to various ISP's),
    Mark Earnest is alive and well and definitely a wackjob in his own
    right.

    As opposed to Chuck Liesalot, who posts imaginary sex stories about
    real women, Earnest posts imginary sex stories about entirely
    fictional entities (what he calls "angels"):

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...031c07b2a5ada7




  3. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote:
    > Archie Leach wrote:
    >>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om> "Andrew B.
    >>>Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"

    >>wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think bible

    >>quotes are indeed
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible evidence at

    >>all.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists only because

    >>atheists don't
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system. LOL
    >>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was 'falsified by

    >>the lying pen
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving long ago

    >>with the advent
    >>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written, then it is the

    >>truth?
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the original.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling the truth.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the advent of

    >>the printing
    >>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so that you can

    >>be confident
    >>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any

    >>falsification by "the
    >>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of lying pens of
    >>>> > > > > > > scribes.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one lie.
    >>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not rely on

    >>the "lying pen
    >>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from whole

    >>cloth.
    >>>> > > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did not happen by

    >>chance
    >>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the errors from the

    >>lying
    >>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of

    >>God?
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>> > > > > >
    >>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>> > > > >
    >>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>> > > >
    >>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third and
    >>>> > > > Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does not include
    >>>> > > > those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the Dragon;
    >>>> > > > or the consensus print run which has none of these?
    >>>> > >
    >>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all print runs.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>
    >>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>
    >>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.

    >>
    >>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>address?

    >
    > Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with outright
    > lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly "digests", Wee
    > Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions much like St. Chung.
    > The main differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an
    > obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his
    > enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the
    > HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >
    > As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting to
    > demon.local now.


    Lies!

    >
    > [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >
    > Hi, Tholen!


    Hi, Tholen!

  4. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    ah wrote in
    news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:

    > Art Deco wrote:
    >> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> bible
    >>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence at
    >>>all.
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists only
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> > because
    >>>atheists don't
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system.
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> > LOL
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>the lying pen
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>with the advent
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written, then
    >>>>> > > > > > > > it is the
    >>>truth?
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> the truth.
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > advent of
    >>>the printing
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>be confident
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any
    >>>falsification by "the
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one lie.
    >>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > rely on
    >>>the "lying pen
    >>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from
    >>>>> > > > > > > > whole
    >>>cloth.
    >>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did not
    >>>>> > > > > > > happen by
    >>>chance
    >>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the errors
    >>>>> > > > > > > from the
    >>>lying
    >>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the
    >>>>> > > > > > kingdom of
    >>>God?
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>> > > > >
    >>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>> > > >
    >>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third
    >>>>> > > > and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does
    >>>>> > > > not include those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and
    >>>>> > > > the Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none of
    >>>>> > > > these?
    >>>>> > >
    >>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all print
    >>>>> > > runs.
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>
    >>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>
    >>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>
    >>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>address?

    >>
    >> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with outright
    >> lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly "digests", Wee
    >> Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions much like St.
    >> Chung. The main differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie
    >> is an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes who
    >> poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung
    >> prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o'
    >> haet.
    >>
    >> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting to
    >> demon.local now.

    >
    > Lies!
    >
    >>
    >> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>
    >> Hi, Tholen!

    >
    > Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  5. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:
    >ah wrote in
    >news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >
    >> Art Deco wrote:
    >>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> bible
    >>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence at
    >>>>all.
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists only
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > because
    >>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system.
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > LOL
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>>with the advent
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written, then
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > it is the
    >>>>truth?
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the truth.
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > advent of
    >>>>the printing
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>>be confident
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any
    >>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one lie.
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > rely on
    >>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from
    >>>>>> > > > > > > > whole
    >>>>cloth.
    >>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did not
    >>>>>> > > > > > > happen by
    >>>>chance
    >>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the errors
    >>>>>> > > > > > > from the
    >>>>lying
    >>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the
    >>>>>> > > > > > kingdom of
    >>>>God?
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third
    >>>>>> > > > and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does
    >>>>>> > > > not include those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and
    >>>>>> > > > the Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none of
    >>>>>> > > > these?
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all print
    >>>>>> > > runs.
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>>
    >>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>>address?
    >>>
    >>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with outright
    >>> lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly "digests", Wee
    >>> Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions much like St.
    >>> Chung. The main differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie
    >>> is an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes who
    >>> poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung
    >>> prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o'
    >>> haet.
    >>>
    >>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting to
    >>> demon.local now.

    >>
    >> Lies!


    Filth!
    >>
    >>>
    >>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>
    >>> Hi, Tholen!

    >>
    >> Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    >Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  6. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote in
    news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:

    > Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>ah wrote in
    >>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>
    >>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> bible
    >>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence at
    >>>>>all.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > LOL
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written,
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > then it is the
    >>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the truth.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > advent of
    >>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any
    >>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lie.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > rely on
    >>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > > whole
    >>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > not happen by
    >>>>>chance
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>lying
    >>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the
    >>>>>>> > > > > > kingdom of
    >>>>>God?
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third
    >>>>>>> > > > and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does
    >>>>>>> > > > not include those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel
    >>>>>>> > > > and the Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>>>address?
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions
    >>>> much like St. Chung. The main differences are in the litsing
    >>>> behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast counter and collector
    >>>> enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical,
    >>>> while St. Chung prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying his
    >>>> enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>
    >>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting
    >>>> to demon.local now.
    >>>
    >>> Lies!

    >
    > Filth!
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>
    >>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >>Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    > Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  7. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:
    >Art Deco wrote in
    >news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >
    >> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>ah wrote in
    >>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>
    >>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>In article <1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I think
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> bible
    >>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very credible
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence at
    >>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief system.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > LOL
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written,
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > then it is the
    >>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was telling
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the truth.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before the
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > advent of
    >>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain any
    >>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lie.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does not
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > rely on
    >>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented from
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > whole
    >>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > not happen by
    >>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > kingdom of
    >>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes Third
    >>>>>>>> > > > and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run which does
    >>>>>>>> > > > not include those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel
    >>>>>>>> > > > and the Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>>>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>>>>address?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions
    >>>>> much like St. Chung. The main differences are in the litsing
    >>>>> behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast counter and collector
    >>>>> enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical,
    >>>>> while St. Chung prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying his
    >>>>> enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting
    >>>>> to demon.local now.
    >>>>
    >>>> Lies!

    >>
    >> Filth!
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >> Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    >Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  8. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote in
    news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:

    > Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>Art Deco wrote in
    >>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>
    >>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om> "Andrew
    >>>>>>>>B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written,
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > then it is the
    >>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > the advent of
    >>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > any
    >>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lie.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > not rely on
    >>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > from whole
    >>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > not happen by
    >>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes
    >>>>>>>>> > > > Third and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>> > > > which does not include those, but does have Tobit,
    >>>>>>>>> > > > Judith, and Bel and the Dragon; or the consensus print
    >>>>>>>>> > > > run which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>>>>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>>>>>address?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions
    >>>>>> much like St. Chung. The main differences are in the litsing
    >>>>>> behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast counter and
    >>>>>> collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies lits to
    >>>>>> rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the HTML
    >>>>>> medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting
    >>>>>> to demon.local now.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Lies!
    >>>
    >>> Filth!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >>Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    > Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  9. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:
    >Art Deco wrote in
    >news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >
    >> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>
    >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om> "Andrew
    >>>>>>>>>B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written,
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > then it is the
    >>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > the advent of
    >>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > any
    >>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lie.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > not rely on
    >>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > from whole
    >>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > not happen by
    >>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > Third and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > which does not include those, but does have Tobit,
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > Judith, and Bel and the Dragon; or the consensus print
    >>>>>>>>>> > > > run which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>>>>>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>>>>>>address?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions
    >>>>>>> much like St. Chung. The main differences are in the litsing
    >>>>>>> behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast counter and
    >>>>>>> collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies lits to
    >>>>>>> rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the HTML
    >>>>>>> medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting
    >>>>>>> to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>
    >>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >> Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    >Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  10. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote:
    > Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>Art Deco wrote in
    >>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>
    >>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om> "Andrew
    >>>>>>>>>>B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall" wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped moving
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > long ago
    >>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of written,
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of the
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > original.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening before
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over so
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that you can
    >>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not contain
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > any
    >>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history of
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least one
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process does
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > from whole
    >>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible did
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > Third and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > which does not include those, but does have Tobit,
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > Judith, and Bel and the Dragon; or the consensus print
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > > run which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no "consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque in
    >>>>>>>>>selectively snipping points from posts that he's too chicken to
    >>>>>>>>>address?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing attributions
    >>>>>>>> much like St. Chung. The main differences are in the litsing
    >>>>>>>> behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast counter and
    >>>>>>>> collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies lits to
    >>>>>>>> rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the HTML
    >>>>>>>> medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to poasting
    >>>>>>>> to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >>Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    > Hi, Tholen!


    Hi, Tholen!

  11. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    ah wrote in
    news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:

    > Art Deco wrote:
    >> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>
    >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Third and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > which does not include those, but does have Tobit,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Judith, and Bel and the Dragon; or the consensus
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > print run which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque
    >>>>>>>>>>in selectively snipping points from posts that he's too
    >>>>>>>>>>chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing
    >>>>>>>>> attributions much like St. Chung. The main differences are in
    >>>>>>>>> the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast
    >>>>>>>>> counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies
    >>>>>>>>> lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use
    >>>>>>>>> the HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >> Hi, Tholen!

    >
    > Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  12. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:

    >ah wrote in
    >news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >
    >> Art Deco wrote:
    >>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now over
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the history
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was invented
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD, the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which includes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Third and Fourth Macabees; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > which does not include those, but does have Tobit,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Judith, and Bel and the Dragon; or the consensus
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > print run which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of all
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the Bible,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively Th0l3nesque
    >>>>>>>>>>>in selectively snipping points from posts that he's too
    >>>>>>>>>>>chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing
    >>>>>>>>>> attributions much like St. Chung. The main differences are in
    >>>>>>>>>> the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast
    >>>>>>>>>> counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies
    >>>>>>>>>> lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use
    >>>>>>>>>> the HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>> Hi, Tholen!

    >>
    >> Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    >Hi, Tholen!


    Hi, Tholeln!



  13. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Archie Leach wrote in
    news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:

    > Phil Kyle wrote:
    >
    >>ah wrote in
    >>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>
    >>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include those,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>>>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>>>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing
    >>>>>>>>>>> attributions much like St. Chung. The main differences are
    >>>>>>>>>>> in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast
    >>>>>>>>>>> counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies
    >>>>>>>>>>> lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use
    >>>>>>>>>>> the HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>
    >>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >>Hi, Tholen!

    >
    > Hi, Tholeln!
    >

    Hi, Tholen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  14. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:
    >Archie Leach wrote in
    >news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >
    >> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>
    >>>ah wrote in
    >>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>
    >>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but I
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at least
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed Bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include those,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along with
    >>>>>>>>>>>> outright lies and snipping relevant context via his cowardly
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for post-editing
    >>>>>>>>>>>> attributions much like St. Chung. The main differences are
    >>>>>>>>>>>> in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is an obsessive poast
    >>>>>>>>>>>> counter and collector enemies' quotes who poasts his enemies
    >>>>>>>>>>>> lits to rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use
    >>>>>>>>>>>> the HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholen!

    >>
    >> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>

    >Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hi, Tholeen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  15. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote in
    news:301120071809563059%erfc@caballista.org:

    > Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>Archie Leach wrote in
    >>news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >I > >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >least > one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Bible did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include those,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> with outright lies and snipping relevant context via his
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> post-editing attributions much like St. Chung. The main
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> who poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> St. Chung prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>
    >>> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>>

    >>Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    > Hi, Tholeen!
    >

    Hi, Tholeen, Tholeen, Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  16. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:

    >Art Deco wrote in
    >news:301120071809563059%erfc@caballista.org:
    >
    >> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>Archie Leach wrote in
    >>>news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >>>
    >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >I > >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >least > one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Bible did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include those,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with outright lies and snipping relevant context via his
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-editing attributions much like St. Chung. The main
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> who poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> St. Chung prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>

    >> Hi, Tholeen!
    >>

    >Hi, Tholeen, Tholeen, Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!


    Who are "Tholeen" and "Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!", Kyle? No one in this
    newsgroup is using those aliases, Kyle.




  17. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Archie Leach wrote:

    >Phil Kyle wrote:
    >
    >>Art Deco wrote in
    >>news:301120071809563059%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>
    >>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>Archie Leach wrote in
    >>>>news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >I > >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >least > one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Bible did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include those,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with outright lies and snipping relevant context via his
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-editing attributions much like St. Chung. The main
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St. Chung prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>
    >>> Hi, Tholeen!
    >>>

    >>Hi, Tholeen, Tholeen, Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!

    >
    >Who are "Tholeen" and "Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!", Kyle? No one in this
    >newsgroup is using those aliases, Kyle.


    Hi, Tholen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  18. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote in
    news:011220071712370922%erfc@caballista.org:

    > Archie Leach wrote:
    >
    >>Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>
    >>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>news:301120071809563059%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>
    >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>Archie Leach wrote in
    >>>>>news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > wrote: > > convicted neighbor Kenneth
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but > >I > >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > very > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > it > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > was > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > now > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >least > one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Bible did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > GOD, the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > is a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > and the Dragon; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > of all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no "consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with outright lies and snipping relevant context via
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his cowardly "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-editing attributions much like St. Chung. The main
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies'
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quotes who poasts his enemies lits to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholeen!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholeen, Tholeen, Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!

    >>
    >>Who are "Tholeen" and "Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!", Kyle? No one in this
    >>newsgroup is using those aliases, Kyle.

    >
    > Hi, Tholen!
    >

    Hit, Tholen!

    --

    P
    h
    i
    l

    K
    y
    l
    e

    W
    o
    z

    E
    r
    e

  19. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Art Deco wrote:
    > Archie Leach wrote:
    >
    >>Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>
    >>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>news:301120071809563059%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>
    >>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>Archie Leach wrote in
    >>>>>news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh, but
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >I > >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not very
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >least > one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Bible did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by GOD,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include those,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Dragon; or the consensus print run which has none
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with outright lies and snipping relevant context via his
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cowardly "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-editing attributions much like St. Chung. The main
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies' quotes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who poasts his enemies lits to rec.music.classical, while
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> St. Chung prefers to use the HTML medium for displaying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hi, Tholeen!
    >>>>
    >>>Hi, Tholeen, Tholeen, Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!

    >>
    >>Who are "Tholeen" and "Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!", Kyle? No one in this
    >>newsgroup is using those aliases, Kyle.

    >
    > Hi, Tholen!


    Hi, Tholen!
    --
    ah

  20. Re: Please pray for the troubled soul of dear convicted neighbor Kenneth Doyle.

    Phil Kyle wrote:
    >Art Deco wrote in
    >news:011220071712370922%erfc@caballista.org:
    >
    >> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>
    >>>Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>news:301120071809563059%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>Archie Leach wrote in
    >>>>>>news:aiqok3lddjmehv76oehlsmld94m0rh7a3k@4ax.com:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>news:474a3b42$0$68460$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>news:241120071917422070%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Art Deco wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:241120071144441342%erfc@caballista.org:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phil Kyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ah wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:47428643$0$90412$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.oct anews.com
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Archie Leach wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><1194464004.552080.181760@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > convicted neighbocr Kenneth Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > wrote: > > convicted neighbor Kenneth
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Doyle wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pastor Frank wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > convicted neighbor "Zen Cohen"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> "Dubh Ghall"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>wrote: >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>> BTW, bible quotes are not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >evidence.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> I'm right there with you, Dubh,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but > >I > >> think bible
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quotes are indeed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >> evidence of a sort -- but not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > very > >> >> credible evidence at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The Bible is not evidence to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > atheists
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > only because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>atheists don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > similar reference for their
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >disbelief
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > system. LOL
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The bible is not evidence, because
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > it > >> was 'falsified by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of the scribes' (Jer. 8:8).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Those lying pens of the scribes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > stopped
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > moving long ago
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the advent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the printing press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > So if something is printed instead of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > written, then it is the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>truth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > That which is printed is a faithful
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > replica
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > of the original.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> So either Jeremiah was lying or he
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > was > >> telling the truth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Jeremiah described what was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > happening
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > before the advent of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > press. Thankfully, those days are
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > now > > over so that you can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be confident
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > that your copy of the Bible does not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > contain any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>falsification by "the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > lying pen of scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > From whom then, does it get its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > falsehoods?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The Bible remains truthful despite the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > history of lying pens of scribes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Either way, the bible contains at
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >least > one lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. The modern printing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > process
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > does not rely on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "lying pen
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > of the scribes."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Yes it does.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Incorrect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Either that or the printed bible was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > invented from whole
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cloth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The assembly of the text of the printed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Bible did not happen by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>chance
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > but by GOD. Through this assembly by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > GOD, the errors from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lying
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pens of scribes have been removed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Apparently GOD's attention wandered
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > subsequently:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Thou shalt commit adultery.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > inherit the kingdom of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>God?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Go and sin on more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > The fool hath said in his heart there
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > is a God.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > All from various print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Not from the consensus print run.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Would this be the consensus print run which
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > includes Third and Fourth Macabees; or the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > consensus print run which does not include
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > those, but does have Tobit, Judith, and Bel
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > and the Dragon; or the consensus print run
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > which has none of these?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > No. That would be the one that is the consensus
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > of all print runs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is none such, as I just pointed out.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is for the discerning.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, but if George says that Ben Sira belongs in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible, and Ralph says that it does not, then there is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>no "consensus".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Least common set" and "consensus" are two different
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concepts.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it me, or has Jesus the Chung become positively
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Th0l3nesque in selectively snipping points from posts
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that he's too chicken to address?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, the parallels are more than just a few. Along
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with outright lies and snipping relevant context via
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his cowardly "digests", Wee Davie is well-known for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-editing attributions much like St. Chung. The main
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences are in the litsing behaviors -- Wee Davie
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an obsessive poast counter and collector enemies'
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quotes who poasts his enemies lits to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rec.music.classical, while St. Chung prefers to use the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTML medium for displaying his enemies lits o' haet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for myself, as a sockpuppet of Satan, I'm confined
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to poasting to demon.local now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lies!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Filth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [++comp.os.os2.advocacy, ++demon.local]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi, Tholeln!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>Hi, Tholen!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Hi, Tholeen!
    >>>>>
    >>>>Hi, Tholeen, Tholeen, Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!
    >>>
    >>>Who are "Tholeen" and "Tholeeeeeeeeeeeen!", Kyle? No one in this
    >>>newsgroup is using those aliases, Kyle.

    >>
    >> Hi, Tholen!
    >>

    >Hit, Tholen!
    >

    Hip, Tholen!

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast