[PLUG-TALK] Being plonked on plug...

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Nov 14 02:09:34 UTC 2003


On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> The pope is infallible on faith and morals.

Right.  So you say.

> You haven't made any point saying he isn't Jeme.

When did I say he isn't?

I said that if Kulongoski was Pope, he could change the Catholic church's
position on abortion.

> This is a classic out of line statement of yours, one that you can't
> prove. Maybe you should read humanae vitae and see what guidelines the
> pope offers for intimate relationships.

I don't give a shit what the Pope says.

> I don't have a persecution complex, your refusal to seperate real
> homophobia from my opposition to gay marriage and public homosexual
> dating is absolutely persecution.

Your homophobia manifests itself in a fear/belief that gay people see you
as a "threat" to their relationships or as a possible romantic partner.

> Haven't a lot of people plonked you Jeme?

I don't know about "a lot".  I know of three or four.  With one possible
exception, they are people with very closed minds and backward ideals.

You know why you don't teach mules to play the violin?

Because the mules hate it and it sounds terrible.

However, you can take comfort in the fact that mules are sterile and will
die out in a generation.

> Why do you hide behind statements that a lot of people are upset with
> me?

I think you made this up.  I have no idea what you mean by the above
question.

> Your anti Catholic statements against the pope are inappropriate.

Did I write any anti-Catholic statements against the pope?  Where?

> Especially now with his health failing, shame on you even more.

Old people die, Michael.  Even the ones you think are infallible.

> The sentence ending stripped a person... This sentence only needs the
> single correction, "people," in place of, "a person."

No, it's deeply flawed.  Try diagramming it.  If you can't see the flaws,
perhaps you need to study english composition.

Try a good grammar or at least a nice style guide.  Here are my two
favorites:
The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White
A Writer's Reference by Diane Hacker

> Perhaps a comma is needed before stripping as well.  Comma use is a
> highly controversial topic among english teachers, are the punctuation
> attacks I'm getting overstated?

No, your butchering of the language is one of the main reasons your posts
come off as unintelligible gibberish.

The other reason is their lack of coherence from start to finish.

Concentrate on constructing sensible sentences, then paragraphs, then
whole posts.

> The Inquisition didn't execute every person brought before it.  A lot of
> people were recognized as penitent without any payment being made, in
> any form.  Oh, don't you remember the church apologizing for the abuses
> of that era?  Where is your mercy Jeme?

I have nearly infinite capacity for mercy, compassion, kindness, and
forgiveness.

Perhaps in five hundred years, if it still exists, the Catholic church
will issue an apology for its abuses of the current era.

> We made a mistake electing Kulongoski, he is analogous to a bad king
> from the inquisition period.

I got no love for the guy, but mostly because he's just another
conservative shill for big money.

> People blame the church for all the things that went wrong during the
> crusades.

The Catholic church was the whole reason for the Crusades.  And unlike the
rumblings of a modern Islamic jihad, it was not the fringe of the church,
but the mainstream.

> The greatest problem with the crusades is that the popes could neither
> control nor guide them properly.

No, the greatest problem with the Crusades was the arrogance of the Popes,
the Catholic church, and every living Catholic who believed they had some
claim over the homeland of other people and that the historical relics of
another land was theirs to plunder.

> A lot of the blame should be placed on kings for the abuses that
> happened.  He who had the army had the power then.  I hope it didn't do
> more harm than good when the church apologized for the abuses of that
> era.

It didn't do any harm OR any good.  It was a meaningless gesture.  It's
very easy to apologize when you've already conquered and pillaged.

Now, when the Catholic church purges its coffers and gives it to the
indigent masses around the world, shuns the opulence and pomp of its high
clergy and re-enstates the proper definition of usury and commits every
member of the church to poverty and service, some good might come of that
bloated, archaic, greedy, thieving hive of bastardy called the Vatican.
But not until then.

Oh, and thanks for totally ignoring the crux of my post and concentrating
on the minutiae.  Skipping the point and going for the details is one more
reason why people think you're irrational.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list