In Reply to: Re: well.... posted by moonshiner on March 17, 2006 at 13:27:42:
Moonshiner/Acheick:
I perceive that I am answering Moonshiner, here, rather than Acheick (with whom I correspond regularly by private e-mail, and know exactly what she believes—we’re quite similar, Moonie-boy! Do you think more like a Moonie, or a habituated or addicted consumer of hillbilly ethanol? I really can’t tell sometimes—joke! ;-)).
What is glaringly noticeable, I am sure that you’ll agree (well—maybe not—you have an amazing consistency with not “’fessing up”, answering direct questions, dodging behind ad hominems-that means personal attack dodges that help you in your evasiveness, etc.), is that your newest observable technique is apparently hiding behind a woman, rather than answering me like a man.
That’s OK—I will include my last post here as a postscript. Want to answer it yet?
Perhaps we may then have a man-to-man direct conversation. IMO (that’s an OPINION—not a personal insult, Moonshiner).
If you do hold true to form—perhaps not. You neglected to answer me, you wrote “to Acheick’ (yeah—right—come out from behind the skirt, OK?) why did you avoid a man’s answer, to tell her “I can't be bothered to do a search of my own posts to defend myself against OT2's absurdities”.
What that I did write were absurdities; exactly?
No fight, here, just a man-to-man (I think!?) question as a request for clarification—got any?
Probably not, just typical ad hominems:
-OT2's endless bible thumping,
-bullying and false accusations
-patronizing, narrow minded, fundamentalists, yak, yak, yak, and yak.
You wrote that the “…fact of the matter is that you can find many many conversations on this board involving Christian themes that are not interrupted by people of other faiths declaring how wrong those Christians are..”
Moonshiner, the thing is, you can find just as many, more, actually, many, many, MANY MORE conversations on this board (and even more than THAT on GeneXers and MovingOn) involving directly ANTIchristian themes bashing ONLY the Christian faith—all very Politically Correct, of course—kind of like your insistence on using the “witch word” “fundamentalist” in the first place, and refusing to actually define what you mean by that—are you afraid that there DOES NOT EXIST a huge body of proof for your glib assertions? (Oh, yeah—“glib, IMO”—whatever.)
That’s amazingly obtuse, on your part, Moonshiner; IMO. Yeah—IMO—right.
Your last paragraph is amazing, where you wrote:
“Btw, thanks for comparing me to Noam Chomsky. I'm honored, although I'm no where near his intellectual stature (I read somewhere that he is the most cited scholar in the world). You might have done better to compare me to Harry Belafonte, a hero to oppressed people every where.”
Here’s some Google Search and Ask.com data on
Noam Chomsky:
Wikipedia (fairly neutral; right?) says that Chomsky:
-defines himself as an anarchist, in his own words, one who is “seeking out all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified”, yet “does not always object to electoral politics; he has even endorsed candidates for office”, even “has also stated that he considers himself to be a conservative” (“of the Classical liberal variety”—What the--?)
-has “…further defined himself as a Zionist; although, he notes that his definition of Zionism is considered by most to be anti-Zionism these days”,
-said “I've often been close to radical Christians…and have found much of what they did inspiring all right…but it would be absurd to say I was part of such communities."” He actually claims to align with Christians—Oh, yeah—RADICAL Christians—that would mean “liberation theology”, where, LIKE ISLAM, new potential “believers” convert or die under the Marxists/Imams, usually in South America, darkest Africa, or whatever; right?
Here are some more really interesting URLs re Chomsky:
http://www.leftwatch.com/faq/people/noam_chomsky.html
They say:
”Although rarely receiving much attention from mainstream media, Chomsky is an icon on college campuses and within the radical political movement which formed from the ashes of the New Left. There is plenty of material on the web about Chomsky, but unfortunately almost all of it is bland hero worship which ignores the fact that while Chomsky is certainly right about many things, he is wrong about numerous others and is ultimately not all that far from those he subjects to intense scrutiny and criticism."
"This page contains original essays pointing out some of Chomsky’s factual errors and his tendency to not apply the same standards to the Left that he applies (for the most part correctly) to the Right.”
See also:
http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm, http://www.jim.com/canon.htm, http://www.mega.nu/ampp/cohn_on_chomsky.html (French Neo-Nazis LOVE this guy!), and, finally, please go see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/713936/posts, “America s Dumbest Intellectual (Anarchist Noam Chomsky)” says: “…and now a younger crowd is following the Pied Piper of anti-Americanism..”.
Geez, that’s scary—didn’t you get sick of that with Mo’? The “Pied Piper” thing; I mean?
Face it, Moonshiner, another one of your “anti-fundamentalist” (not to be confused with Islamac Jihadist “fundamentalism”; oh no!) dedicatedly "atheist bombshells" you brought here to amaze us proved to be yet still another well-known "dud".
Chomsky is a total lightweight on all counts---IMO just another chicken-shit Socialist without “los huevos” to be an actual Capitalist-killing (women and children, TOO!) actual Communist.
Hmm.
Why would you want to adulate someone like him? He’s demonstrably an M.I.T. bigwig who merely MERCHANDIZES “oppressed people every where”.
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)
PS Here’s the post you avoided answering, again:
In Reply to: Re: How I'm feeling today about it all, today and what' to come posted by moonshiner on March 16, 2006 at 12:52:15:
Yeah, Moonshiner, you've never done that (har, har!)
Keep that broad brush out and painting everything in sight; that's right! It's all about your tender self, who's always forthright, honest and respectful in his dealings with those who don't agree with you, Bubba.
Right--disagreeing with you is "only" character-disparagement, judgment, accusation of cult-like thinking, and on and on; ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
If someone went to all the archived posts of yours, we'd, of course, NEVER find Christian-bashing, arrogant unprovable allegations and PC mockeries towards the Christian beliefs, no; NOT YOU. Uh-uh. Right.
And, ANYONE countering stupidities and dishonesties and intellectually fraudulent statements which require long answers BECAUSE of the amazingly obtuseness OF those stupidities is, OF COURSE, merely "barrag[ing] with verbose posts" and "lectures" by the self-righteous".
Uh-huh. You bet. Right. Yeah--you've discovered something new under the sun, and Stupid fundamentalists like me are threatened.
Oh, yeah. I'm threatened. By what; please? Explain.
The process of personal development must begin with at least some honesty and integrity, don't you think; Moonshiner?
Shall I bother to enumerate how you have NOT done that, on a consistent basis?
You have yet to demonstrate that capacity, and I notice you never directly answer questions posed to you along those lines.
Why; please?
How about we begin a REAL discussion about all of the "reasons we're all well aware of" regarding an insistence to lecture (which, of course, you NEVER DO!) by "fundamentalists"?
Did you replace your use of "Sytemite" with that one? Nice witch-word. Do you always use such stereotypes and generalities? What kind of "fundamentalists" are you talking about, and what are your EXACT objections to what you think they/we/I "ALL" believe and practice?
Better yet; don't bother. You are definitely predictable, and, as I told Zither, responding to your customary comments has become quite boring. Sorry.
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)
PS Is THIS a lecture? Am I one of them
"fun-damn mentalists"? Garsh. Is my belief system, compared to all of your ASTUTE and highly intellectually fair and PROVABLY CORRECT many points of view, just a religion ROOTED IN STUPIDITY?
Aren't you actually just a little ticked because the "atheist bombshells" you brought here to amaze us were already well-known "duds"?
Hmm.
Methinks he doth protest too much.