From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>..It seems the brain is no more useful than a good pair of tusks......

Can't resist:

Must resist.

Aw go ahead, it's so easy.

Sounds like a description of your thought process.


From: Peter on
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> Peter <peternew(a)> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>> Peter <peternew(a)> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> Peter <peternew(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Peter <peternew(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I am curious as to how religion in the US could require someone to
>>>>>>>>>>"relinquish choice". There is no mechanism by which a citizen may
>>>>>>>>>>his voting rights to another party.
>>>>>>>>> You haven't heard anything of the various cults which demand total
>>>>>>>>> obedience of followers and use all manner of coercive techniques
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> obtain consent, freedom, and property?
>>>>>>>>Those abusers do not make all organized religions bad. It is an
>>>>>>>>what can easily happen if we lose vigilance.
>>>>>>> Almost all religions rely upon some form of coercion to ensure a
>>>>>>> steady
>>>>>>> income. Usually it's by pretending that only the church can "save"
>>>>>>> you from damnation, or by claiming that people who do not rely upon
>>>>>>> religion are "immoral" or dangerous.
>>>>>>You know less about religions than you know about business.
>>>>>>In many religions there is no central authority, to which the money
>>>>> Who said anything about a "central authority"? I referred to
>>>>> religions.
>>>>> Is the money that the local priest collects any different from the
>>>>> money the "central authority" collects?
>>>>In many cases yes!
>>> You're either lying or stupid. Money is money. If you spend $100 on
>>> the local priest it matters not in the slightest to you if he gives
>>> some of that to some "central authority". You're still out $100.
>>As I said earlier you know nothing about how churches operate.
> You're trying to change the subject.
>> You only see
> I see another disgusting apologist.

Right I apologize for caring.


From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:05:18 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
>>So regardless of how that minority group in our society came to be
>>"different" they are there, and there is no valid reason for the "LAW"
>>to treat them differently. I don't particulary care what any Christian
>>denomination, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, or whatever believes.
>>That is their internal issue, and they should neither discriminate
>>against, nor interfere with the beliefs of their fellow citizens.
> Religions do discriminate against members of other religions and
> people without a religion, but I see absolutely no problem with that.
> Many churches will not allow you to marry (and I'm referring to a
> "straight" couple) unless you are a member of that church. The
> Mormons will not even allow you to *attend* a "temple marriage" if
> you are not a Mormon. Mormon also forbid non-Mormons from attending
> endowments.
> Some religious private schools admit only children of church members
> or admit children of non-church members only if enrollment is not
> filled by church members.
> Most synagogue will not seat you on high holidays if you are not a
> member. If the "holy rollers" or "snake handlers" don't want present
> at their services, they can refuse you entrance. You can't just call
> any church and expect them to host a funeral service for you if you
> are not a member. You can't demand to be buried in their cemetery.
> There are many other instances of discrimination by churches. Much of
> it is based on the premise that a church is private property and you
> have no right to access without permission.
> It's legal discrimination, though...just as legal as it would be for
> you to refuse to admit some walk-up stranger to a party at your home.
> You can turn the JW away at your door, so it's fair that the JW can
> turn you away at their church's door.

You nailed it.
We all have our prejudices. That's OK so long as you understand them and
understand where the line is.


From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:53:37 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)> wrote:
>>From the logic 191 textbook:
>>He who makes an affirmative statement has the obligation of proving it. A
>>failure to provide the proof creates a strong inference of lack of
> I thought you were against picking on Chris.



From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:56KdnYCvxPQOPlLWnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4bcf2004$0$27730$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:MPWdncL2_4aCilLWnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d(a)
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bccebb7$0$27701$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>>>>>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they
>>>>>> find it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people
>>>>>> off.....As a matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a
>>>>>> good statistic) who have all their fingers and toes and mental
>>>>>> capabilities and could work, but don't, and give this money to those
>>>>>> of whom you speak who can't work for one reason or another. The
>>>>>> people of whom I speak, who could work but don't, ate (and have been)
>>>>>> subsidized by the state of California all of my life...<BS rant
>>>>>> snipped>
>>>>> And the reliable source for your statistics is?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>> My excellent memory.....Please don't confuse welfare recipients with
>>>> those on disability.....(although I have issues with the disability
>>>> funds handling also) My son worked for the state cutting checks for
>>>> both for around a year, but he worked for Oregon, and not California.
>>> I requested a RELIABLE AND VERIFIABLE source.
>>> Obviously, all you can do is cite bull turds
>>> --
>>> Peter
>> What you, "request" and what I am willing to work to deliver are two very
>> different things......I know what I know. You may do your own research to
>> come up with a different figure if you desire, but don't expect me to
>> deliver it to you.
> When you quote a statistic intellectual honesty demands you have a logical
> basis for it. Your answer speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty,
> or lack thereof.
> --
> Peter
No. I have read on several occasions that the number of people collecting
welfare who have some real disability either mental or physical is between 1
and 2 %. I believe that because I have heard/seen it on several occasions. I
will go with what I believe. If you doubt it, you can do your own research,
and tell me a different figure. But I am happy with what I have learned in
the past, and although I can't remember exactly where and when I heard it, I
do believe it, so I don't believe I have to justify it to you. As I say, If
you doubt it, then research it and dispute it to me.....IOW, screw you. I am
not going to do your research for you.