Geez, you know, where to begin? As I open this response post, there have been 41 posts since I was here yesterday ( 41 !!!! ). And there will probably be 5 or 6 more before I finish my response and post.


Quote:

Danny said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter to a friend.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he passionately argued for.

But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear. And the desire that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.


Says who? The millions of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc in your country? Or you?



The founding fathers who drafted the Declaration and Constitution, Danny.
As is abundantly clear in their personal writings, some of which I posted above, if you'd bothered to simply read it.

But I'm sure you'd rather just ignore the facts and call me an "ignorant fuckwad" or whatever else you said on the GRASSY KNOLL boards.
Never let such a piddly thing as the facts get in the way of your half-baked liberal views.


Quote:

Danny said:
The following is being posted on behalf of a friend of mine named Mike who doesn't have a working ID at this particular message board...
Quote:

(uncredited and posted in an immature and cowardly way, but thanks to Britneyspearsatemyshorts, we all know now who it was posted by) Mad Hatter:
I've been reading this monster of a thread for quite a while now. I have to admit, it's quite fascinating. Some strong arguments have been put forth here. I do have a few opinions of my own.

A few dates for you.
5-23-02
12-29-03
1-02-04
1-05-04
1-11-04
1-13-04
1-14-04
1-17-04
1-21-04
1-24-04

These, for the record, are the dates in which Dave The Wonder Boy posted on threads in the Women forum of this board. The majority of these threads contained pornographic pictures which Dave admits to approving of.

1-09-04
1-10-04
1-11-04
1-13-04
1-15-04
1-16-04
1-18-04
1-21-04
1-23-04

These are the dates in which Dave The Wonder Boy posted pornographic images of his own, some of which clearly came from sites which require an expensive monthly fee. Some of the images also seem to have come from a spam e-mail recieved by Dave, which he looked into further just out of "curiousity".

Now, I'm no Christian. Never have been. Unless I'm too much mistaken, though, both the manufacture and enjoyment of pornography is considered a sin by Christians. This is merely a theory based on personal experience, but it's rare to find a man who has memberships to at least two Internet porn sites who doesn't masturbate to the images found there. One must also realize that masturbation is also a sin in the eyes of Christians.

Now, Dave, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you here, but one must guess that, based on the evidence, you spend a hell of a lot of time surfing the Net for porn. Some of the days you spent posting porn on this board were even Sundays, Dave. I may need correction on that point, actually. Do Christians consider Sunday to be the Sabbath, or is that just a Catholic thing?

Mind you, I'm not one to judge. If you want to spend your free time sinning, Dave, then more power to you. Still, the frequency with which you seem to enjoy your porn indicates that this is a serious problem. One that a good Christian might even seek redemption and forgiveness for. Have you spoken about this to your pastor yet? Or, in lieu of that, prayed to God for guidance on this matter? If these questions are too personal, Dave, do let me know.

Still, I would have to guess that you have not, considering how recent some of those dates are. One could theorize that you don't really see this as a sin, or perhaps as a smaller sin not really worthy of God's wrath. Certainly not as bad as, for example, homosexuality. One might start to think that you, like so many other Christians, only pay lip service to your "faith". For example, you wallow in the filth of pornography, because you personally enjoy it. Yet, you are willing to deny homosexuals the rights due to all tax-paying Americans simply because it would infringe upon your rights to pursue your faith. Rather convenient, isn't it?

For the record, what is your personal belief on pornography, Dave? Will you be standing up to be counted amongst those who wish to see it outlawed? Surely you will, as it goes so blatantly against the Christian values that you clutch so fervently to your bosom.

It's odd to me, I admit. You are more than willing to class homosexuals as lower-class citizens because of your religious beliefs, yet you spend a great deal of time sinning, and spreading that sin to your fellow perverts here. Do you know what they say about a man who has strong feelings against homosexuality, and spends a great deal of his time proclaiming loudly about his attraction to the opposite sex? Like you, Dave, I am no psychiatrist. Perhaps we can all come to our own conclusions here.

I'm just curious, Dave. Feel free to ignore my questions if you like. Looking at the evidence, though, one might start to think that your opposition to gay marriage has to do with some deep personal bias, and that you're using the Bible to excuse this resentment. I know that a good porn-loving Christian like you would never do such a thing, though.





Again, I never had any encounter that I'm aware of prior to this with this Mad Hatter person who's deposited himself up my rectal cavity like a proctologist's rubber glove, and I'd be even more blind-sided if Britney hadn't posted a link to all this pretentiousness.

Following Britney's link led me to this:

( from the GRASSY KNOLL message boards... )

( "Bullshit", appropriately, is the name of the topic section where these two topics are posted. )

Bullshit: Cocks and The People Who Fear Them..."
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001764&p=

"Bullshit: Daniel..."
http://208.56.183.233/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001768

Given that Mad Hatter has already heavily edited his opening post to the "Daniel..." topic, to attempt to wipe out the inconsistencies and weaseliness that others here have pointed out in the 41 posts (so far) that have beeen made since I was here last (many thanks, Britney, Pariah, Kristogar Velo, DrZSmith, and Franta ).

Mad Hatter's appeal to Danny to post his own weaseliness has been omitted through self-editing of his opening post to the "Daniel..." topic for some unknown reason, over on the GRASSY KNOLL boards.
But the weaseliness is already known here to all of us.

And his formerly absolute statements have been lightened to "appears to be", "apparently", and "often", and other less committed qualifiers for his accusations, in the "Daniel..." topic.

( A topic which, again, would be hidden from my knowledge, if not for Britney's posting a link, which neither of these two cowards had the courage to post here. )

Mad Hatter's comments are yet another example of liberals who can't argue the issue, who instead attack the messenger, to attempt to harass and humiliate them into silence under a flood of false allegations.
A tactic used frequently in this topic by Jim Jackson, Dave, Whomod, Matter Eater Man and others of the gay/liberal persuasion. You guys constantly resort to dismissive labels and smear tactics, rather than discussing on the merits of the issue.

One liberal schmuck has told me to: "Go for the ball, not the man."
Even as he constantly goes for the man (me), and not the ball.
And somehow, in his relentless wrongheaded posturing pretentiousness, never sees the hypocrisy of what he's doing.
Play on, Maestro !

So once again, I'm hit with 500 words of false accusation, put on the defensive for no reason, and will probably be committed to 10,000 words of explanation to clarify what the truth is.
And in your infinite oh-so-superior liberal wisdom, you'll still continue with your insults and false characterizations, no matter how thoroughly I answer and disprove what you've alleged.

Some very rich ironies here.

1) That you try to tell me that I'm a bad Christian, without even being a Christian yourself, while in fact having a contempt for Cristianity, and by all appearances, not having the slightest CLUE what Bible verses I'm allegedly violating.

Oh, Kettle, thou art black.

2) The thesis of what I've argued, since page 2 of this topic is "Marriage" has been an institution for 6000-plus years. Gays can have Civil Union (a marriage equivalent) and have the same rights as married heterosexuals under the law in our democracy.
But they should not attempt to change the definition of marriage, which would violate the clear Biblical views of Judaism and Christianity, and freedom to practice those religions in their Bible-based fundamentalist form.
And would violate similar institutions in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.
And would also force acceptance of gays onto agnostics and atheists --who don't buy into any fundamentalist religion, but also still don't believe in "gay marriage".

That is what I've been saying since page 2, with crystal clarity. And any gay/liberal/secularist reading this topic who doesn't get my point by now, clearly doesn't want to get my point. The point has been made a hundred different ways.

I could be a Hindu or a secular humanist just arguing the Christian point of view here, and still be making this point, based on what gay marriage entails, and what Bible scripture clearly says about homosexuality(although obviously I am a Christian).
But my argument is valid regardless: "gay marriage" is **not** a concept that's compatible with the Bible, the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.

I'm not condemning homosexuals as evil. I'm merely pointing out the Bible's stance on the issue (virtually all the verses have been posted here). Pointing out that homosexuality is incompatible with the Judao/Christian concept of marriage, and that of all the world's major religions.

I make it clear that both extramarital hetero-sex and homosexuality are both forms of adultery. I've been equal in my comments throughout, I have not singled out gays, while not similarly defining the Biblical stance on heterosexual adultery, in some partisan double-standard. As you allege falsely.

3) It's a misrepresentation to say I'm attempting to, or even advocating an attempt to, "discriminate" against gays or deny them rights.
I've said consistently since page 2 of this topic that I don't oppose gay civil union, which would give gays full rights within a secular framework, without re-writing Judaism and Christianity, and the Bible they are based on.

Civil union would not render public discussion of the Bible verses condemning homosexuality a "hate crime", and thus warp the ability to teach the moral standard the Bible clearly teaches.

Legalizing "gay marriage" would.
And similarly, would make a hate-crime of similar verses and beliefs from the books of faith for other religions.
Or again, would similarly suppress the rights of atheists and agnostics who while not religious, still don't believe in gay marriage, and don't want it legally imposed on them.


4) Neither pornography or masturbation are specifically addressed in the Bible. ( Nor are television, movies, the internet, air travel, antibiotics, guns, atomic weapons, recorded music, music videos, abortion, birth control, or a million other issues, that could all be argued to be protective, enlightening and beneficial to mankind, or decadent, unnatural and destructive.)
And there is VERY diverse opinion on these issues among the Christian community.

Whereas the Bible is extremely specific about the severity of adultery and homosexual behavior.

Your interpretation is your own interpretation, and NOT from the Bible.

The Matthew verse: "he who looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart", does not clearly draw the line between desire and adultery. To look at a woman in a dress or a bikini and think she's attractive, is much different than planning to have sex with her, and conspiring a plan to do so.
A frequently voiced analysis of that verse is that only when that desire becomes a plan to seduce her, does it become a sin. (The interpretation footnoted in my NIV study Bible, and other Bible references I've read.)

One Christian book on sexuality I read called masturbation "God's greatest gift", a way to satisfy desire without committing adultery.
But again, the Bible does not clearly say masturbation or pornography are a sin. These are interpretations, and interpretations vary.

By your standard, I can't watch rated R movies, watch TV sitcoms, or look at a pretty girl at a shopping mall or the beach, because any of those things could incite desire.

But your clear lack of knowledge of Biblical scripture, and stated contempt for Christian beliefs, and frequent blasphemous remarks in your posts (yes, I looked at your recent posts at GRASSY KNOLL. After all, you apparently looked at all 869 of my posts here, and I felt obligated to at least look at the most recent 50 of yours, to see who this person was who had to use Danny to attack me, and couldn't even post the links to the GRASSY KNOLL topics, where this pompous liberal exercise in condescension of conservative/Christian views originated. And where since yesterday you've spinelessly edited Danny out of your initial post to the "Daniel..." topic, to hide how you pressed another --Danny-- to do your character assassination for you ).

More directly, what you allege specifically against me:

5) You count my posts to the WOMEN forum, and automatically assume that because I posted there, that all my posts are approval of, viewing of, and endorsement of, pornography.

The title of the section is WOMEN, not PORNOGRAPHY.

WOMEN covers a much wider scope. Even when nude or semi-nude pictures are posted.

Despite your distortion, many of my posts are an appreciation and reverence for women, discussion of their beauty and what I as a man personally find attractive in women in ALL aspects:
physically, in personality, and emotionally, relationship issues, advice to a guy who was having a rough time being in love with a girl who had no regard for him, and my own similar experience with a former love of my own.
I discuss one woman so beautiful, I said that if she was alive in Roman times, there'd be marble statues of her all over Europe now.
On one where someone posted Playboy photos of twins, I said "I've got a hankerin' for some double mint gum".

A terrible thing, that.


I mostly just express absolute awe for women, and their feminine, flirtatious ways, and express enthusiasm for the mystery that is woman.
Which, I think, is vastly different than "Man, I'd like to nail her !'

But whatever, think what you want.

All the images I posted are from free sites that were solicited by e-mail to me. As I said in at least two of the topics I posted to. ( Again, thanks Pariah. You saw it, so obviously some people out there can read and understand. )
I've mostly been pretty selective about what I post. Mostly pin-up girls like you'd see on a magazine cover.
Or at most, like a Playboy centerfold, nothing too explicit. The greek statue lady was the most explicit, and I thought she was so beautiful, I didn't want to omit any photos, regardless of how revealing they were.

There was one "porn" post of mine from May of 2002 that you listed, that I didn't even recall.
I thought I posted to the WOMEN section for the first time in December 2003.

So I checked it out:

Quote:

Re: vote for rob's hot girl, week of 5-20-02 topic:


#41653 - Thu May 23 2002 03:59 PM


Quote:


Originally posted by THE Franta:
Laura Dern!



Oh yeah !

Laura Dern is a major hottie, who somehow gets overlooked.
Despite her being in Jurassic Park, Rambling Rose, Wild At Heart, Blue Velvet, October Sky, Citizen Ruth, and a number of other great lesser-known movies.

It seems to be by her own design that she hasn't become a major star.




Pretty incriminating stuff. Clear evidence of my masturbatory tendencies, my obsession and long hours looking at porn. My clear rejection of all Christian principles and scripture. Terrible, terrible stuff !


I once looked at about 100 of my own previous posts, and that took me several hours. So I guess I really should be flattered that you felt such a need to review my posts (consuming days? weeks ?), and retentively tabulate statistics of them. Even though you did it for the petty reason of lame-ly trying to "gotcha !" me.

But flattering as that is, I find your condescension baseless and pompous, and I feel that you are the intolerant one, who has such a burning need to stereotype myself and other Christians and conservatives, so you can rationalize the oh-so-allegedly-intellectual-superiority of your liberal embracement of homosexuality and gay marriage.
Never questioning your own lack of respect for Christianity, and your intolerance of Christian views, and outright urination on Christian beliefs.

I might be more inclined to join you on your boards, if I had a similar tendency to use the word "fuck" five times per sentence.
Oh yes, so morally and intellectually superior.

Quote:

Mad Hatter (again, channeled in a cowardly way through Danny):
Now, Dave, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you here...



Ohhhh nooooo, of course not ! Gee, where would I get an idea like that?


Clearly, you don't want real answers, you just want to call me names and stick it to me for not being an oh-so-enlightened superior liberal like yourself.
And clearly, you don't even have enough spine to discuss your real intentions.
Whatever.
Your intent is clear enough.

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."