Discussion:
Listening to the Bob Dean "interview"
(too old to reply)
Johnny Lobster
2008-04-09 20:17:11 UTC
Permalink
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissect Dean's blurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.

Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.

However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.

For those who are interested in how Dean does his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.

I wonder if the interviewer asked Dean why he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.

Lobster
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-09 20:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissect Dean's blurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in how Dean does his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer asked Dean why he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
I was hoping for that, but it doesn't sound like it.

I'm trying to avoid listening through the whole thing - any time points
that are funny remix fodder?
Johnny Lobster
2008-04-09 20:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ouroboros_Rex
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissect Dean's blurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in how Dean does his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer asked Dean why he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
I was hoping for that, but it doesn't sound like it.
I'm trying to avoid listening through the whole thing - any time points
that are funny remix fodder?
Sorry, I didn't keep track, and I am not going to listen again. There
is not enough good material to make it worthwhile.

Lobster
Johnny Lobster
2008-04-09 23:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by Ouroboros_Rex
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissect Dean's blurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in how Dean does his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer asked Dean why he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
I was hoping for that, but it doesn't sound like it.
I'm trying to avoid listening through the whole thing - any time points
that are funny remix fodder?
Sorry, I didn't keep track, and I am not going to listen again. There
is not enough good material to make it worthwhile.
Lobster
Just finished listening to the whole thing. I think it is apparent
that the interviewer is getting a clue about Dean's bullshit by the
end of the interview. Listen to him moan near the end. I suspect he
has some regrets. Dean's interpretation of Finnegan's wake, shortly
after 2:47 is particularly hilarious and embarrassing. It would be
funny on an HOS, but it would only encourage him.

Lobster
purple
2008-04-10 11:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissectDean'sblurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in howDeandoes his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer askedDeanwhy he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
  I was hoping for that, but it doesn't sound like it.
  I'm trying to avoid listening through the whole thing - any time points
that are funny remix fodder?
Sorry, I didn't keep track, and I am not going to listen again. There
is not enough good material to make it worthwhile.
Lobster
Just finished listening to the whole thing. I think it is apparent
that the interviewer is getting a clue aboutDean'sbullshit by the
end of the interview. Listen to him moan near the end. I suspect he
has some regrets.Dean'sinterpretation of Finnegan's wake, shortly
after 2:47 is particularly hilarious and embarrassing. It would be
funny on an HOS, but it would only encourage him.
Lobster- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't THINK so.

The interviewer, Ben Watson, is sighing because he wants to continue -
he's having such a great time. How do I know this? Because I'm sitting
here typing with his 10-day old son, Mordechai, in my arms. Also,
because we continued talking off the air and because he and his
partner, Esther, have wined and dined me since I got here a week ago -
always discussing the original SubDeanies: Wyndham Lewis, James Joyce,
Marshall McLuhan, and Frank Zappa. We're still talking and will till I
leave.

The slack-filled conversation also includes Gamma (host of the Martian
Embassy in Kentish Town) and Simon Prentis, Japanese translator of
Frank Zappa.

Simon and Gamma were the other 2 voices for the first 90 minutes or
so.

More on Simon:

http://www.united-mutations.com/p/simon_prentis.htm#

More on Gamma:

http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2004/11/30/frank-zappa

Gamma is a devotee of Robert Anton Wilson, Rudy Rucker, and me.

You see, you sad sacks here on alt.sack are seriously misinformed
because you listen to Doug.

Doug hasn't a clue when it comes to my world. He even thinks he's got
a handle on what Gail Zappa thinks of me.

Understand: when I'm involved, it's always an inside job.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Johnny Lobster
2008-04-10 13:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Just finished listening to the whole thing. I think it is apparent
that the interviewer is getting a clue about Dean'sbullshit by the
end of the interview. Listen to him moan near the end. I suspect he
has some regrets.Dean'sinterpretation of Finnegan's wake, shortly
after 2:47 is particularly hilarious and embarrassing. It would be
funny on an HOS, but it would only encourage him.
Lobster- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't THINK so.
The interviewer, Ben Watson, is sighing because he wants to continue -
he's having such a great time.
Yeah, that's why I sigh. You are almost as tedious as Baldin Pramer.

You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?

Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?

Johnny Lobster
purple
2008-04-11 01:52:24 UTC
Permalink
You do  know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).

I can explain why, you can't.

When you can, we can talk.
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.

It doesn't interest us.

It's not on our radar.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
revChuckKey
2008-04-11 02:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
When you can, we can talk.
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Just as I planned ALL along.
You are my puppet, Bob Dean.
When I pull the strings, you dance a fucking jig like Mr. Bojangles.


You can't even WAIT TIL YOU GET BACK HOME to start gushing about your
conquest of the UK, and how you played Resonance FM like a violin...Go
ahead, they're waiting for it too. I doubt they'll play another show
with you on it, unless it's for comic relief. The good news is, they
smelled your bullshit too. It's unfortunate it took them an extra day
to figure it out.
purple
2008-04-11 02:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by revChuckKey
Post by purple
You do  know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
When you can, we can talk.
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
The GREATBobDobbs
Just as I planned ALL along.
You are my puppet,BobDean.
When I pull the strings, you dance a fucking jig like Mr. Bojangles.
You can't even WAIT TIL YOU GET BACK HOME to start gushing about your
conquest of the UK, and how you played Resonance FM like a violin...
I'm not going home. I'm going to Hawaii.
Post by revChuckKey
I doubt they'll play another show
with you on it, unless it's for comic relief.
I will be on again next Wednesday.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
revChuckKey
2008-04-11 03:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
I will be on again next Wednesday.
The GREAT Bob Dobbs
I send my condolences to Hawaii.
Rev. Ivan Stang
2008-04-11 18:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by revChuckKey
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
And yet he posts a several times a day to alt.slack. While he's in
England. Naw, Church of the SubGenius isn't important to Dean. Not at
all. Not even on his radar.

Somehow I just can't see most of us rushing back to a computer several
times a day -- while traveling and visiting friends -- to see what the
SubGeniuses might have said about us on alt.slack while we were gone.
On the contrary, alt.slack and the Church have much more of a hold
over Dean than anyone else I know of, including Alcandor. Dean hasn't
been able to pry himself away from our kook flypaper since he first
got stuck to it in the '80s. Hell, he even named himself after "Bob"!
Reminds me of the poor bastard who got his entire back covered with
Dobbshead tattoos, only to subsequently blow it with every single
other SubGenius he encountered, because of his rage problem and an
inability to take a joke -- or even to grasp that one had been told.
Post by revChuckKey
Just as I planned ALL along.
You are my puppet, Bob Dean.
When I pull the strings, you dance a fucking jig like Mr. Bojangles.
You are right. You'll get tired of it soon enough, though, like so
many of us have. Because it's always the SAME DANCE.
Post by revChuckKey
You can't even WAIT TIL YOU GET BACK HOME to start gushing about your
conquest of the UK, and how you played Resonance FM like a violin...
Wait? He's already spent half his time in England doing that already.
To that thing that isn't even on his radar.
purple
2008-04-11 22:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Post by revChuckKey
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
And yet he posts a several times a day to alt.slack. While he's in
England. Naw, Church of the SubGenius isn't important toDean. Not at
all. Not even on his radar.
Somehow I just can't see most of us rushing back to a computer several
times a day -- while traveling and visiting friends -- to see what the
SubGeniuses might have said about us on alt.slack while we were gone.
On the contrary, alt.slack and the Church have much more of a hold
overDeanthan anyone else I know of, including Alcandor.Deanhasn't
been able to pry himself away from our kook flypaper since he first
got stuck to it in the '80s. Hell, he even named himself after "Bob"!
Reminds me of the poor bastard who got his entire back covered with
Dobbshead tattoos, only to subsequently blow it with every single
other SubGenius he encountered, because of his rage problem and an
inability to take a joke -- or even to grasp that one had been told.
Post by revChuckKey
Just as I planned ALL along.
You are my puppet,BobDean.
When I pull the strings, you dance a fucking jig like Mr. Bojangles.
You are right. You'll get tired of it soon enough, though, like so
many of us have. Because it's always the SAME DANCE.
Post by revChuckKey
You can't even WAIT TIL YOU GET BACK HOME to start gushing about your
conquest of the UK, and how you played Resonance FM like a violin...
Wait? He's already spent half his time in England doing that already.
To that thing that isn't even on his radar.
You assume, Doug, that I'm the one doing the posting.

More naivety.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Rev. Tom Sane
2008-04-11 02:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.

Big fucking deal.
purple
2008-04-11 02:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
You do  know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Rev. Tom Sane
2008-04-11 02:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREAT Bob Dobbs
You don't understand. I was doing something you seem to be unable to
do, I cut the crap.

The book was named after the song. That's a fact.

The apostrophe changed it from possessive to plural and changes wake
from a funeral wake to a wake as in wake up.

When you cut the crap: Joyce liked the song and was anal about
apostrophes.
purple
2008-04-11 02:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
You do  know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREATBobDobbs
You don't understand.  I was doing something you seem to be unable to
do, I cut the crap.
The book was named after the song.  That's a fact.
The apostrophe changed it from possessive to plural and changes wake
from a funeral wake to a wake as in wake up.
When you cut the crap: Joyce liked the song and was anal about
apostrophes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
purple
2008-04-11 02:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
You do  know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREATBobDobbs
You don't understand.  I was doing something you seem to be unable to
do, I cut the crap.
The book was named after the song.  That's a fact.
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.

And there is no apostrophe in the title. It's a newspaper headline.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Johnny Lobster
2008-04-11 03:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.

Lobster
purple
2008-04-11 09:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by purple
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.
Wrong. Study it and you will see it mutate.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-11 09:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by purple
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.
Wrong. Study it and you will see it mutate.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's dead earthworms
hanging out your ears, dood.
Modemac
2008-04-11 13:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.
Welcome to the world of Bob Dean, where he is the absolute authority
on the book, and everyone else is wrong because they don't know the
TRUE MEANING behind every single period, lack of punctuation, or
nonsense word in "Finnegans Wake." (Ask him about the meaning of
"HCE" at some time -- or better yet, don't ask him.) Put Dean in
front of a microphone and he will babble on endlessly for hours at a
time about it spouting nonsense phrases ad nausaeum. Point at a
window curtain and ask how that curtain can be tied in to "Finnegans
Wake," and he'll give you an hour-and-a-half sermon on it.

Now picture Dean rambling on and on about this subject, in his
newsgroup postings, Web message board, and the occasional podcast,
radio show, or fringe zine article. Imagine him obsessing on the same
subject for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five YEARS, talking about nothing
else except himself, himself, McLuhan, Joyce, himself, Zappa, himself,
LaRouche, himself, and himself. That may give you an inkling of why
the residents of alt.slack are sick and tired of his idiocy.

--
The High Weirdness Project
http://www.modemac.com
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-11 14:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Modemac
Post by Johnny Lobster
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.
Welcome to the world of Bob Dean, where he is the absolute authority
on the book, and everyone else is wrong because they don't know the
TRUE MEANING behind every single period, lack of punctuation, or
nonsense word in "Finnegans Wake." (Ask him about the meaning of
"HCE" at some time -- or better yet, don't ask him.) Put Dean in
front of a microphone and he will babble on endlessly for hours at a
time about it spouting nonsense phrases ad nausaeum. Point at a
window curtain and ask how that curtain can be tied in to "Finnegans
Wake," and he'll give you an hour-and-a-half sermon on it.
Now picture Dean rambling on and on about this subject, in his
newsgroup postings, Web message board, and the occasional podcast,
radio show, or fringe zine article. Imagine him obsessing on the same
subject for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five YEARS, talking about nothing
else except himself, himself, McLuhan, Joyce, himself, Zappa, himself,
LaRouche, himself, and himself. That may give you an inkling of why
the residents of alt.slack are sick and tired of his idiocy.
--
The High Weirdness Project
http://www.modemac.com
i agree with this poast.
poiple, when he talks
about himself even, spouts
neato made-up words
that he himself cannot define.

a few years ago i tried
to engage him in conversation
but it was like talking to
a never-ending
line of really bad
stepped-on Cocaine
on a pair of mirrors
that face each other
so tightly
there's no room
to stick the straw in
to snort any of it.
Unclaimed Mysteries
2008-04-11 16:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Modemac
Point at a
window curtain and ask how that curtain can be tied in to "Finnegans
Wake," and he'll give you an hour-and-a-half sermon on it.
Sounds HORRIBLE, as it should. But under other circumstances, wouldn't
*that* be some sort of SubGenius-like "gift?" That's all I'm saying.

There's no justification for the well-documented fraudulent aspects of
this sad man's "career," but this has gone on so long that I wonder if
Dean is betting that he can wear down the true SubGeniuses until they
give in?

Also makes you wonder if real religions were affected this way? Suppose
there was a relentless Dean-ish analogue to Christ, and after a while,
the people of the church threw up their hands and decided to follow the
bogus one?

THAT could NEVER happen, could it?

(SHUDDER)

Which is why eternal vigilance is the price of Slack. That and thirty
dollars.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
SODDI the FluffyWuffkins
2008-04-11 17:06:26 UTC
Permalink
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
Post by Modemac
Point at a
window curtain and ask how that curtain can be tied in to "Finnegans
Wake," and he'll give you an hour-and-a-half sermon on it.
Sounds HORRIBLE, as it should. But under other circumstances, wouldn't
*that* be some sort of SubGenius-like "gift?" That's all I'm saying.
There's no justification for the well-documented fraudulent aspects of
this sad man's "career," but this has gone on so long that I wonder if
Dean is betting that he can wear down the true SubGeniuses until they give
in?
Also makes you wonder if real religions were affected this way? Suppose
there was a relentless Dean-ish analogue to Christ, and after a while, the
people of the church threw up their hands and decided to follow the bogus
one?
THAT could NEVER happen, could it?
(SHUDDER)
Which is why eternal vigilance is the price of Slack. That and thirty
dollars.
Saul of Tarsus as Bob Dean? Or the other way around.
Ankara
2008-04-11 17:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
There's no justification for the well-documented fraudulent aspects of
this sad man's "career," but this has gone on so long that I wonder if
Dean is betting that he can wear down the true SubGeniuses until they
give in?
Also makes you wonder if real religions were affected this way? Suppose
there was a relentless Dean-ish analogue to Christ, and after a while,
the people of the church threw up their hands and decided to follow the
bogus one?
THAT could NEVER happen, could it?
(SHUDDER)
Whats even MORE RIDICULOUS is that this not only happened, BUT WAS
DOCUMENTED, and even in light of THAT KNOWLEDGE it didnt seem to make a
difference to the true *believers* (dumbasses)

Exhibit A:
Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*

*decided by committee

Exhibit B:
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican
(and in fact the churches early dominion over Rome) is based on a forgery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY in
QUESTION at all. (if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very
little, if any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the
council of nicaea *decided* who god was....)

Most christians even KNOW this stuff (well not all of course) but even
so, they still follow the bull... (this explains why dean has a coupla
minions on his little msg board doesnt it?)

One born every minute.
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Slack will get you through the times of no slack." -Zeppo
Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
2008-04-11 18:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
I love this picture

Loading Image...

It looks like they are so crowded in there that all their gold scuba
helmets are bumping each other.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Post by Ankara
Police arrested Patrick Lawrence, a 22-year-old white male, resident of Dacula, GA, in a pumpkin patch at 11:38 p.m. Friday. Lawrence will be charged with lewd and lascivious behavior, public indecency, and public intoxication at the Gwinnett County courthouse on Monday.
The suspect allegedly stated that as he was passing a pumpkin patch, he decided to stop. "You know, a pumpkin is soft and squishy inside, and there was no one around here for miles. At least Ithought there wasn't," he stated in a phone interview from the Lawrenceville jail.
Lawrence went on to state that he pulled over to the side of the road, picked out a pumpkin that he felt was appropriate to his purposes, cut a hole in it, and proceeded to satisfy his alleged "need."
"I guess I was just really into it, you know?" he commented with evident embarrassment. In the process, Lawrence apparently failed to notice the Gwinnett County police car approaching and was unaware of his audience until officer Brenda Taylor approached him.
"It was an unusual situation, that's for sure," said officer Taylor. "I walked up to (Lawrence) and he's...just working away at this pumpkin."
Taylor went on to describe what happened when she approached Lawrence. "I just went up and said, "Excuse me sir, but do you realize that you are screwing a pumpkin?"
He got real surprised, as you'd expect, and then looked me straight in the face and said, "A pumpkin? Damn...is it midnight already?"
:: Currently listening to Sorrow, 2005, by Flyleaf, from "Flyleaf"
Roger Pearse
2008-04-12 13:59:51 UTC
Permalink
 Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere. None of this is
true. All the second century fathers call him God:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html

And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY in
QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very
little, if any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the
council ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.

Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.

Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in
good faith. I think that I've done enough for these, who should now
look further. All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all
are here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

so anyone who wants to can verify what I said. But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence. If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions. If you cannot find any to
support your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather
the point. If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's
revealing but of no great interest.
Most christians even KNOW this stuff but even so, they still follow the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
One born every minute.
So it seems. Be more sceptical in future.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
revChuckKey
2008-04-12 14:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere. None of this is
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Post by Ankara
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
Post by Ankara
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY in
QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
Post by Ankara
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very
little, if any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the
council ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.
Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in
good faith. I think that I've done enough for these, who should now
look further. All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
so anyone who wants to can verify what I said. But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence. If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions. If you cannot find any to
support your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather
the point. If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's
revealing but of no great interest.
Post by Ankara
Most christians even KNOW this stuff but even so, they still follow the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
Post by Ankara
One born every minute.
So it seems. Be more sceptical in future.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
I call it all bullshit.

All the best,
revCHUCKkey
Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
2008-04-12 19:40:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:58:24 -0700 (PDT), revChuckKey
Post by revChuckKey
I call it all bullshit.
I raise
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
AND YET, we (well, y'all) have produced MILLIONS of dobbsheads over
decades and yet very few people have, at the sight of one, clawed
their eyes out and leapt off a cliff to their death.

It's just not fucking fair.

:: Currently listening to I Know You Rider, 1971, by The Grateful Dead, from "Three From The Vault"
Ankara
2008-04-12 15:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
 Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly
 300
years after his
death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God' Now he is the
true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere. None of this is
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it discussed
whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same substance
(homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican (and in fact the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when the
popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the raids
of Lombards etc.
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY
in QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very little, if any
conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the council
ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.
Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in good
faith. I think that I've done enough for these, who should now look
further. All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all are
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
so anyone who wants to can verify what I said. But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence. If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions. If you cannot find any to support
your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather the point.
If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's revealing but
of no great interest.
Most christians even KNOW this stuff but even so, they still follow the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
One born every minute.
So it seems. Be more sceptical in future.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
HAHA. I remember YOU!!
You are the guy who wont accept ANYTHING as verification unless it
confirms to YOUR views...I remember arguing with you before, until I
realized that not only were you a moron, you had worked yourself into the
deepest corners of denial with your "ancient texts' only spiel.
Since you can do this, so can I, from now on any argument from you that
does not proceed from documents that start with the assumption that God is
'an imaginary man who lives up in space' will be ignored. The reason for
this is, any documents where God is assumed to be real, then OBVIOUSLY
they cannot be AUTHORITATIVE.

Thank you.
Lets talk again real soon!
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Slack will get you through the times of no slack." -Zeppo
SODDI the FluffyWuffkins
2008-04-12 16:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
HAHA. I remember YOU!!
You are the guy who wont accept ANYTHING as verification unless it
confirms to YOUR views...I remember arguing with you before, until I
realized that not only were you a moron, you had worked yourself into the
deepest corners of denial with your "ancient texts' only spiel.
Since you can do this, so can I, from now on any argument from you that
does not proceed from documents that start with the assumption that God is
'an imaginary man who lives up in space' will be ignored. The reason for
this is, any documents where God is assumed to be real, then OBVIOUSLY
they cannot be AUTHORITATIVE.
Thank you.
Lets talk again real soon!
Yes, it's the Mithras dweeb!
Roger Pearse
2008-04-12 18:20:09 UTC
Permalink
 Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly
 300
years after his
death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God' Now he is the
true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere.  None of this is
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it discussed
whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same substance
(homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican (and in fact the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when the
popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the raids
of Lombards etc.
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY
in QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very little, if any
conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the council
ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.
Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in good
faith.  I think that I've done enough for these, who should now look
further.  All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all are
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
so anyone who wants to can verify what I said.  But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence.  If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions.  If you cannot find any to support
your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather the point.
If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's revealing but
of no great interest.
Most christians even KNOW this stuff  but even so, they still follow
the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
One born every minute.
So it seems.  Be more sceptical in future.
HAHA. I remember YOU!! (abuse)
And another atheist, caught in a falsehood, fouls himself in his
fury. Oh dear.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Ankara
2008-04-12 19:24:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:20:09 -0700, Roger Pearse wrote:

Tell you what roger, lets go over EACH of your contentions one by one
to see where you went wrong, ok?
 Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until
 nearly 300
years after his
death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God' Now he is the
true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere.  None of this is
Did they? what proof do you have of that? that ALL fathers called him
god? I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all' in
this case.
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means? Arius proposed that since scripture
said that 'god begat the son' therefore jesus had a *beginning* and
THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
WHILE ALSO believing Jesus was god also. (have you noticed that this
might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
questions about Jesus being *god*

Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
DECIDED that jesus's FUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican (and in fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even
REMOTELY in QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
Yet you dont question that it was in fact a forgery OR that it granted
the popes power over all of rome.
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very little, if
any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the council
ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Why arent you there Roger...correcting them?
Giving us mere mortals a better reference work?
HAHA. I remember YOU!! (abuse)
And another atheist, caught in a falsehood, fouls himself in his fury.
Oh dear.
Yet you did NOT address ANYTHING I said, and simply called it: (abuse)

There was a serious challenge in there you know, one which you will be
unable to rise to. It is BEACAUSE that christians consider works
*heretical* that they are unable to have a balanced argument with a non-
believer. If Roger hears ANYTHING that goes against his god-complex, he
can simply say to himself that it is an ATTACK by LIARS. Because if a
document exists from ANY TIME that assumes that god/jesus is false it is
A 'LIE' right roger?

HTH
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Do you think you're illuminated? I make thermonuclear blasts look like
a squirrel." -Zeppo
Roger Pearse
2008-04-12 21:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
Tell you what roger, lets go over EACH of your contentions one by one
to see where you went wrong, ok?
By all means. It's much more interesting that way.
Post by Ankara
 Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until
 nearly 300
years after his
death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God' Now he is the
true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere.  None of this is
Did they? what proof do you have of that?  that ALL fathers called him
god?  I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all' in
this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.

In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
online in English, so it is relatively simple to go and look:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2

A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it
covers the point entirely:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
Post by Ankara
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?  
Theology isn't my interest, really. I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life. But I know what the positions were.
Post by Ankara
Arius proposed that since scripture
said that 'god begat the son' therefore jesus had a *beginning* and
THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST.
Arius called Jesus "Fully God", however, in his letter to his
supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia, ca 321 AD. That would appear to
dispose of any queries about whether he believed Jesus was not God.
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
I'm afraid the mistake is your own. Greek nouns do not have endings
like that.

www.basictheology.com/definitions/Homoousios/
Post by Ankara
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
After a quick look, I can confirm that most of the material on this
page is true. But it is merely a collection of modern statements,
rather than anything referenced and evidenced. Not sure why you
reference it; it doesn't seem to support the claims which I rebutted,
does it?
Post by Ankara
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican (and in fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even
REMOTELY in QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
Yet you dont question that it was in fact a forgery
It isn't genuine. It may not be a forgery as such, tho, considering
that the existence of belief that such a donation occurred is
documented prior to its composition (it's complicated, and this isn't
the place to go into it). It was certainly used for very dodgy
political purposes during the late middle ages, to advance a spurious
claim.

Have you ever read it? Or the refutation by Lorenzo Valla? I did
both, and assessed Valla's arguments. Some of them were duff, but the
main points that he made were valid, and obviously so even today. He
wrote it as a piece of hack work for the king of Aragon, who wanted an
excuse to invade the papal states. Valla ended up working for the
popes, tho.
Post by Ankara
OR that it granted the popes power over all of rome.
It actually granted the popes power over the whole of the Roman
empire, not just Rome.
Post by Ankara
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very little, if
any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the council
ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Why arent you there Roger...correcting them?
Giving us mere mortals a better reference work?
I would, if it was actually possible. Like many experts (which I am
not) I find that Wikipedia edits that contradict popular hearsay get
reverted by people who believe the hearsay and have no other
education. I don't have the time to get involved in edit wars; I
would do nothing else.

I have occasionally contributed material where I felt it probably
would not be a waste of time; I added some material on Arabic
Christian texts a while back to a page which was rather wishy-washy (I
think). But on any topic of political or religious controversy, to
write there is to waste your time. Better to create your own pages.
Post by Ankara
HAHA. I remember YOU!! (abuse)
And another atheist, caught in a falsehood, fouls himself in his fury.
Oh dear.
Yet you did NOT address ANYTHING I said, and simply called it: (abuse)
I rarely trouble to address personal abuse. Who cares what you say
about me? Certainly not I! Anonymous posters tend to go unread.
Post by Ankara
If Roger hears ANYTHING that goes against his god-complex, he
can simply say to himself that it is an ATTACK by LIARS.
There is no religious component to anything that I am posting about.
I naturally dismiss liars when I find them, since what sort of
discussion is possible with someone who is willing to lie?
Post by Ankara
Because if a document exists from ANY TIME that assumes that god/jesus is false it is
A 'LIE' right roger?
Um, why? Some people write this in good faith. Rather a lot of
people work on that sort of basis, in modern society, without being
liars.

I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.

On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar. What else can I
do with such a scumbag?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Ankara
2008-04-12 22:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did they? what proof do you have of that?  that ALL fathers called him
god?  I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all'
in this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.
In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it covers
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
that page is 404 not found, it's not important though, most notably
because I can see that our definition of *father* is different anyway,I
see now that you meant only the highest church leaders, I meant any
priest..
of course if you see how I took your statement, it WOULD be very
impossible to prove that every 'man of the cloth' thought that jesus was
god.
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Roger Pearse
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?
Theology isn't my interest, really. I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life. But I know what the positions were.
I dont understand why you erased what I said here...this argument started
because you called my assertion that the CON (council of Nicaea)
*decided* on whether jesus was divine/god or NOT...and whenever I break
it down for you, the theology involved, and point you to a page backing
it up, you merely say that "most of it seems true" but dont bother to
address why I would think that the CON was A load of NONSENSE

let me reprint it again, so it isnt lost in the *mysteries* of the
internets:

:Do you understand what that means? Arius proposed that since scripture
:said that 'god begat the son' therefore jesus had a *beginning* and
:THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
:lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
:WHILE ALSO believing Jesus was god also. (have you noticed that this
:might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
:questions about Jesus being *god*

:Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
:the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
:funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
:DECIDED that jesus's FUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
:UNENDING

now if you read that, could you see where someone could come to the
conclusion that these people were 'god building?' I mean, it's obvious
that you believe, but try and see how an unconcerned third party might
see this little meeting. I dont expect you to EVER agree with my
assertions, (you couldnt I understand that) but you MUST now see why I
have them.

I think this may be tied to your admission that you 'don't *do* theology'
if you dont, then sure, you might not see what I see there, but there is
no reason why you would be unable to.
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
Hmm...Now I have seen this spelled two different ways in multiple places,
since I cannot find a definitive answer, I yield to your spelling of the
word as being the correct one.
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
HAHA. I remember YOU!! (abuse)
And another atheist, caught in a falsehood, fouls himself in his
fury. Oh dear.
Yet you did NOT address ANYTHING I said, and simply called it: (abuse)
I rarely trouble to address personal abuse. Who cares what you say
about me? Certainly not I! Anonymous posters tend to go unread.
Except that it wasnt abuse, there were points made (dont worry I made
them again)
Post by Roger Pearse
I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.
I find this statement VERY interesting. I will not say anything about it,
positive or negative, I just make note of it, so that anyone else reading
this besides you or I, might make note of it as well.
Post by Roger Pearse
On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar. What else can I do
with such a scumbag?
I am not lying to you Roger, not now or the last time we talked.

HTH
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Slack will get you through the times of no slack." -Zeppo
Roger Pearse
2008-04-14 07:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did they? what proof do you have of that?  that ALL fathers called him
god?  I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all'
in this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.
In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it covers
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
that page is 404 not found,
Sorry, that should have been

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Post by Ankara
it's not important though, most notably because I can see that our definition of
*father* is different anyway,I see now that you meant only the highest church leaders,
I meant any priest..
Actually no, I meant "any writer of the Christian church in that
period". I didn't want to impose any pre-conception on the question.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?
Theology isn't my interest, really.  I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life.  But I know what the positions were.
I dont understand why you erased what I said here...this argument started
because you called my assertion that the CON (council of Nicaea)
*decided* on whether jesus was divine/god or NOT...
Which is not true, of course. Both sides called Jesus "fully God".
The technical question of homoousios is a different matter. It is
certainly the case that if Jesus is not homoousios then in some sense
he is an inferior god; but that is not what those who held that
position intended to assert.

(I snip stuff that I don't believe is key purely to keep the post
within reasonable bounds; just restore anything you feel *is* key)
Post by Ankara
let me reprint it again, so it isnt lost in the *mysteries* of the
:Do you understand what that means?  Arius proposed that since scripture
:said that 'god begat the son' therefore jesus had a *beginning* and
:THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
:lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
:WHILE ALSO believing Jesus was god also. (have you noticed that this
:might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
:questions about Jesus being *god*
:Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
:the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
:funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
:DECIDED that jesus's FUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
:UNENDING
now if you read that, could you see where someone could come to the
conclusion that these people were 'god building?' I mean, it's obvious
that you believe, but try and see how an unconcerned third party might
see this little meeting. I dont expect you to EVER agree with my
assertions, (you couldnt I understand that) but you MUST now see why I
have them.
I think this may be tied to your admission that you 'don't *do* theology'
if you dont, then sure, you might not see what I see there, but there is
no reason why you would be unable to.
Doesn't this position amount to the following, tho?

1. Arius says Jesus is God.
2. His position involves saying he is a lesser God.
3. This proves that the council decided whether Jesus was God or not.

But I say.

1. Arius says Jesus is God.
2. We should believe he meant that.
3. There is no discussion of whether Jesus was God; only of in what
sense his divinity related to that of the Father.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
Hmm...Now I have seen this spelled two different ways in multiple places,
since I cannot find a definitive answer, I yield to your spelling of the
word as being the correct one.
No hassle. It's hardly important, after all.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.
I find this statement VERY interesting. I will not say anything about it,
positive or negative, I just make note of it, so that anyone else reading
this besides you or I, might make note of it as well.
Post by Roger Pearse
On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar.  What else can I do
with such a scumbag?
I am not lying to you Roger, not now or the last time we talked.
I hope so. I only carry a short list of people I know are willing to
lie to me in my head, and you aren't on it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Knuje
2008-04-14 09:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did they? what proof do you have of that? that ALL fathers called him
god? I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all'
in this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.
In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it covers
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
that page is 404 not found,
Sorry, that should have been
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Post by Ankara
it's not important though, most notably because I can see that our definition of
*father* is different anyway,I see now that you meant only the highest church leaders,
I meant any priest..
Actually no, I meant "any writer of the Christian church in that
period". I didn't want to impose any pre-conception on the question.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?
Theology isn't my interest, really. I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life. But I know what the positions were.
I dont understand why you erased what I said here...this argument started
because you called my assertion that the CON (council of Nicaea)
*decided* on whetherjesuswas divine/god or NOT...
Which is not true, of course. Both sides calledJesus"fully God".
The technical question of homoousios is a different matter. It is
certainly the case that ifJesusis not homoousios then in some sense
he is an inferior god; but that is not what those who held that
position intended to assert.
(I snip stuff that I don't believe is key purely to keep the post
within reasonable bounds; just restore anything you feel *is* key)
Post by Ankara
let me reprint it again, so it isnt lost in the *mysteries* of the
:Do you understand what that means? Arius proposed that since scripture
:said that 'god begat the son' thereforejesushad a *beginning* and
:THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
:lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
:WHILE ALSO believingJesuswas god also. (have you noticed that this
:might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
:questions aboutJesusbeing *god*
:Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
:the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
:funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
:DECIDED thatjesus'sFUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
:UNENDING
now if you read that, could you see where someone could come to the
conclusion that these people were 'god building?' I mean, it's obvious
that you believe, but try and see how an unconcerned third party might
see this little meeting. I dont expect you to EVER agree with my
assertions, (you couldnt I understand that) but you MUST now see why I
have them.
I think this may be tied to your admission that you 'don't *do* theology'
if you dont, then sure, you might not see what I see there, but there is
no reason why you would be unable to.
Doesn't this position amount to the following, tho?
1. Arius saysJesusis God.
2. His position involves saying he is a lesser God.
3. This proves that the council decided whetherJesuswas God or not.
But I say.
1. Arius saysJesusis God.
2. We should believe he meant that.
3. There is no discussion of whetherJesuswas God; only of in what
sense his divinity related to that of the Father.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
Hmm...Now I have seen this spelled two different ways in multiple places,
since I cannot find a definitive answer, I yield to your spelling of the
word as being the correct one.
No hassle. It's hardly important, after all.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.
I find this statement VERY interesting. I will not say anything about it,
positive or negative, I just make note of it, so that anyone else reading
this besides you or I, might make note of it as well.
Post by Roger Pearse
On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar. What else can I do
with such a scumbag?
I am not lying to you Roger, not now or the last time we talked.
I hope so. I only carry a short list of people I know are willing to
lie to me in my head, and you aren't on it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
But if PanDeism is true, then we are all equally part of God.... Jesus
had a lot of pandeistic observations, maybe he was hinting at PanDeism
all along....
Roger Pearse
2008-04-14 15:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Knuje
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did they? what proof do you have of that?  that ALL fathers called him
god?  I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all'
in this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.
In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it covers
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
that page is 404 not found,
Sorry, that should have been
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Post by Ankara
it's not important though, most notably because I can see that our definition of
*father* is different anyway,I see now that you meant only the highest church leaders,
I meant any priest..
Actually no, I meant "any writer of the Christian church in that
period".  I didn't want to impose any pre-conception on the question.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?
Theology isn't my interest, really.  I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life.  But I know what the positions were.
I dont understand why you erased what I said here...this argument started
because you called my assertion that the CON (council of Nicaea)
*decided* on whetherjesuswas divine/god or NOT...
Which is not true, of course.  Both sides calledJesus"fully God".
The technical question of homoousios is a different matter.  It is
certainly the case that ifJesusis not homoousios then in some sense
he is an inferior god; but that is not what those who held that
position intended to assert.
(I snip stuff that I don't believe is key purely to keep the post
within reasonable bounds; just restore anything you feel *is* key)
Post by Ankara
let me reprint it again, so it isnt lost in the *mysteries* of the
:Do you understand what that means?  Arius proposed that since scripture
:said that 'god begat the son' thereforejesushad a *beginning* and
:THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
:lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
:WHILE ALSO believingJesuswas god also. (have you noticed that this
:might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
:questions aboutJesusbeing *god*
:Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
:the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
:funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
:DECIDED thatjesus'sFUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
:UNENDING
now if you read that, could you see where someone could come to the
conclusion that these people were 'god building?' I mean, it's obvious
that you believe, but try and see how an unconcerned third party might
see this little meeting. I dont expect you to EVER agree with my
assertions, (you couldnt I understand that) but you MUST now see why I
have them.
I think this may be tied to your admission that you 'don't *do* theology'
if you dont, then sure, you might not see what I see there, but there is
no reason why you would be unable to.
Doesn't this position amount to the following, tho?
1.  Arius saysJesusis God.
2.  His position involves saying he is a lesser God.
3.  This proves that the council decided whetherJesuswas God or not.
But I say.
1.  Arius saysJesusis God.
2.  We should believe he meant that.
3.  There is no discussion of whetherJesuswas God; only of in what
sense his divinity related to that of the Father.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
Hmm...Now I have seen this spelled two different ways in multiple places,
since I cannot find a definitive answer, I yield to your spelling of the
word as being the correct one.
No hassle.  It's hardly important, after all.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.
I find this statement VERY interesting. I will not say anything about it,
positive or negative, I just make note of it, so that anyone else reading
this besides you or I, might make note of it as well.
Post by Roger Pearse
On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar.  What else can I do
with such a scumbag?
I am not lying to you Roger, not now or the last time we talked.
I hope so.  I only carry a short list of people I know are willing to
lie to me in my head, and you aren't on it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
But if PanDeism is true, then we are all equally part of God.... Jesus
had a lot of pandeistic observations, maybe he was hinting at PanDeism
all along....
Would you care to explain how this observation relates to my post?

Roger Pearse
Knuje
2008-04-15 17:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Knuje
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did they? what proof do you have of that? that ALL fathers called him
god? I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all'
in this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.
In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it covers
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
that page is 404 not found,
Sorry, that should have been
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Post by Ankara
it's not important though, most notably because I can see that our definition of
*father* is different anyway,I see now that you meant only the highest church leaders,
I meant any priest..
Actually no, I meant "any writer of the Christian church in that
period". I didn't want to impose any pre-conception on the question.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?
Theology isn't my interest, really. I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life. But I know what the positions were.
I dont understand why you erased what I said here...this argument started
because you called my assertion that the CON (council of Nicaea)
*decided* on whetherjesuswas divine/god or NOT...
Which is not true, of course. Both sides calledJesus"fully God".
The technical question of homoousios is a different matter. It is
certainly the case that ifJesusis not homoousios then in some sense
he is an inferior god; but that is not what those who held that
position intended to assert.
(I snip stuff that I don't believe is key purely to keep the post
within reasonable bounds; just restore anything you feel *is* key)
Post by Ankara
let me reprint it again, so it isnt lost in the *mysteries* of the
:Do you understand what that means? Arius proposed that since scripture
:said that 'god begat the son' thereforejesushad a *beginning* and
:THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
:lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
:WHILE ALSO believingJesuswas god also. (have you noticed that this
:might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
:questions aboutJesusbeing *god*
:Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
:the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
:funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
:DECIDED thatjesus'sFUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
:UNENDING
now if you read that, could you see where someone could come to the
conclusion that these people were 'god building?' I mean, it's obvious
that you believe, but try and see how an unconcerned third party might
see this little meeting. I dont expect you to EVER agree with my
assertions, (you couldnt I understand that) but you MUST now see why I
have them.
I think this may be tied to your admission that you 'don't *do* theology'
if you dont, then sure, you might not see what I see there, but there is
no reason why you would be unable to.
Doesn't this position amount to the following, tho?
1. Arius saysJesusis God.
2. His position involves saying he is a lesser God.
3. This proves that the council decided whetherJesuswas God or not.
But I say.
1. Arius saysJesusis God.
2. We should believe he meant that.
3. There is no discussion of whetherJesuswas God; only of in what
sense his divinity related to that of the Father.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
Hmm...Now I have seen this spelled two different ways in multiple places,
since I cannot find a definitive answer, I yield to your spelling of the
word as being the correct one.
No hassle. It's hardly important, after all.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.
I find this statement VERY interesting. I will not say anything about it,
positive or negative, I just make note of it, so that anyone else reading
this besides you or I, might make note of it as well.
Post by Roger Pearse
On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar. What else can I do
with such a scumbag?
I am not lying to you Roger, not now or the last time we talked.
I hope so. I only carry a short list of people I know are willing to
lie to me in my head, and you aren't on it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
But if PanDeism is true, then we are all equally part of God.... Jesus
had a lot of pandeistic observations, maybe he was hinting at PanDeism
all along....
Would you care to explain how this observation relates to my post?
Roger Pearse
It is germaine to the discussion above of the molecules of Jesus!! God
sustains all molecules equally, for all are an extension of God
itself!!
2cool4school
2008-04-16 23:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Knuje
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did they? what proof do you have of that?  that ALL fathers called him
god?  I will excuse this one as it would be impossible to prove 'all'
in this case.
I suppose many people would imagine this.
In fact there are precisely 10 such writers, and all their works are
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2
A digest on a related issue is here, although I don't know if it covers
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.htm
that page is 404 not found,
Sorry, that should have been
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
Post by Ankara
it's not important though, most notably because I can see that our definition of
*father* is different anyway,I see now that you meant only the highest church leaders,
I meant any priest..
Actually no, I meant "any writer of the Christian church in that
period".  I didn't want to impose any pre-conception on the question.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Do you understand what that means?
Theology isn't my interest, really.  I couldn't define "ousia" to save
my life.  But I know what the positions were.
I dont understand why you erased what I said here...this argument started
because you called my assertion that the CON (council of Nicaea)
*decided* on whetherjesuswas divine/god or NOT...
Which is not true, of course.  Both sides calledJesus"fully God".
The technical question of homoousios is a different matter.  It is
certainly the case that ifJesusis not homoousios then in some sense
he is an inferior god; but that is not what those who held that
position intended to assert.
(I snip stuff that I don't believe is key purely to keep the post
within reasonable bounds; just restore anything you feel *is* key)
Post by Ankara
let me reprint it again, so it isnt lost in the *mysteries* of the
:Do you understand what that means?  Arius proposed that since scripture
:said that 'god begat the son' thereforejesushad a *beginning* and
:THEREFORE there was a time when he DIDNT EXIST. Which lead to a whole
:lotta trouble for people wanting to believe in an 'alpha and omega god'
:WHILE ALSO believingJesuswas god also. (have you noticed that this
:might lead creedence to the idea that at least ONE person had a few
:questions aboutJesusbeing *god*
:Now this caused a ruckus, so there needed to be a big-ass meeting where
:the person who said such things was condemned MIGHTILY. Also there were
:funny concepts introduced on the subject of *god matter* wherein it was
:DECIDED thatjesus'sFUCKING MOLECULES were part of god..and THEREFORE
:UNENDING
now if you read that, could you see where someone could come to the
conclusion that these people were 'god building?' I mean, it's obvious
that you believe, but try and see how an unconcerned third party might
see this little meeting. I dont expect you to EVER agree with my
assertions, (you couldnt I understand that) but you MUST now see why I
have them.
I think this may be tied to your admission that you 'don't *do* theology'
if you dont, then sure, you might not see what I see there, but there is
no reason why you would be unable to.
Doesn't this position amount to the following, tho?
1.  Arius saysJesusis God.
2.  His position involves saying he is a lesser God.
3.  This proves that the council decided whetherJesuswas God or not.
But I say.
1.  Arius saysJesusis God.
2.  We should believe he meant that.
3.  There is no discussion of whetherJesuswas God; only of in what
sense his divinity related to that of the Father.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
UNENDING (HOMOOUSIOUS <you spelled it wrong)
Hmm...Now I have seen this spelled two different ways in multiple places,
since I cannot find a definitive answer, I yield to your spelling of the
word as being the correct one.
No hassle.  It's hardly important, after all.
Post by Ankara
Post by Roger Pearse
I am averse to making religious disagreements a test of true or false.
I find this statement VERY interesting. I will not say anything about it,
positive or negative, I just make note of it, so that anyone else reading
this besides you or I, might make note of it as well.
Post by Roger Pearse
On the other hand, if I catch someone lying to me -- not making a
mistake, but deliberately saying something that he knows is not so,
knows that he made up -- I will treat him as a liar.  What else can I do
with such a scumbag?
I am not lying to you Roger, not now or the last time we talked.
I hope so.  I only carry a short list of people I know are willing to
lie to me in my head, and you aren't on it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
But if PanDeism is true, then we are all equally part of God.... Jesus
had a lot of pandeistic observations, maybe he was hinting at PanDeism
all along....- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"Jesus" was a gnostic character illustrating that we all have the
light of god within, trapped in this earthly flesh. His friend Judas
had the dubious honor of his sacrifice to relase him from his earthly
bonds. In exchange Judas was given this most secret "Knowledge", that
of the gnostics.
Ankara
2008-04-14 17:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Which is not true, of course. Both sides called Jesus "fully God". The
technical question of homoousios is a different matter. It is certainly
the case that if Jesus is not homoousios then in some sense he is an
inferior god; but that is not what those who held that position intended
to assert.
Yes, that is exactly true, Arius (and there is no indication whether he
knew this or not)and his assertions DID make Jesus an inferior god, or
*something* other than what he is considered today, I dont know that a
being that spent time *not existing* can be considered divine or not
under a christian definition. I realize this might not have been Arius's
intention, but it IS what happened.
And I know I am not the only one to feel this way, because there was a
big meeting called about it, to put any such assertions TO REST.
This is not a thread that church leaders wanted anyone tugging on. It was
important to nip this crap in the bud, before all of a sudden you've got
a messiah lowered to the rank of 'common human'

And we couldnt have that could we.

I think we are just going to continue to disagree here, I think that
meeting was a chance to CONFIRM jesus's divinity and nothing else, a
chance to remove any possible dissent from the *party line* as it were,
and put up a unified front.
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Slack will get you through the times of no slack." -Zeppo
Roger Pearse
2008-04-14 18:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
Which is not true, of course.  Both sides called Jesus "fully God". The
technical question of homoousios is a different matter.  It is certainly
the case that if Jesus is not homoousios then in some sense he is an
inferior god; but that is not what those who held that position intended
to assert.
Yes, that is exactly true, Arius (and there is no indication whether he
knew this or not)and his assertions DID make Jesus an inferior god, or
*something* other than what he is considered today...
No, I agree with you here.
Post by Ankara
I dont know that a being that spent time *not existing* can be considered divine or not
under a christian definition. I realize this might not have been Arius's
intention, but it IS what happened.
I think that we have to prefer a plain statement "Jesus is fully God"
to our inference as to what his position logically entailed, tho.
Post by Ankara
I think we are just going to continue to disagree here...
Sure.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
revChuckKey
2008-04-14 18:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
I think that we have to prefer a plain statement "Jesus is fully God"
to our inference as to what his position logically entailed, tho.
Jesus is a legendary folk hero and God is an outstanding work of
fiction.
That's logic.
Roger Pearse
2008-04-14 20:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by revChuckKey
Post by Roger Pearse
I think that we have to prefer a plain statement "Jesus is fully God"
to our inference as to what his position logically entailed, tho.
Jesus is a legendary folk hero and God is an outstanding work of
fiction.
Assertion noted.
Post by revChuckKey
That's logic.
No, child, it's an assertion. Logic involves deduction from premises,
not assertions. Try a dictionary -- it may help you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Jack Smutpuffin
2008-04-16 23:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by revChuckKey
Post by Roger Pearse
I think that we have to prefer a plain statement "Jesus is fully God"
to our inference as to what his position logically entailed, tho.
Jesus is a legendary folk hero and God is an outstanding work of
fiction.
That's logic.
yeah, but with as often as these pesky universes split, remix and and
get awefully drunk all the time i'm gonna say fuck logic because it's
generally never funny... now a good yarn based on something
interesting, regardless of it's propensity to truth (which is pretty
subjective on this planet anyway), IS SOMETIMES really funny and
shifts reality in a different direction.

I find nothing wrong in a partying, whore friendly jesus, frankly I
could be him considering my propensity for real and fake miracles and
drunks, sluts and drugs (while i never ever ever get that sick from
any of it some how, hehe), i can down my Jehovah Juice I'll tell you
what (doing it right now actually).

I don't even mind God all that much seeing as either he/she's too busy
to notice I'm doing what I am or he/she really likes what I'm doing,
which works for my ranter ass both ways sidewaystaneously (yeah go
back in your history books and find your subG ancestors if you didn't
already Know about it).

I prefer to think all of the heros are real, and still around somehow,
I can be completely wrong but I don't care. I look at what a logic
driven, reality limiting world has done to life, and more importantly
LIVING, on this planet and I say hang it all have fun, call each other
Baphomet, Hercules, Minerva, Hanuman, what ever (but those with the
most powers get to claim the better historical titles of course, i
mean Lex Talionis).

Logic without fun is boring, i prefer good stories. Now the gods of
the masses (including the non-gods mind you as well) just have
hijacked older titles for their own or non-own purposes, and they can
keep it if they want, it's not going to matter when the masses can't
be a mass anymore cause the worlds so heavy the ground'll sink
beneath'em and they all really go to hell at last...

Real Hell... My hell... the one I really want them all to go to...
mwahahaha
Rev. Ivan Stang
2008-04-12 18:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere. None of this is
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Post by Ankara
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
Post by Ankara
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY in
QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
Post by Ankara
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very
little, if any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the
council ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.
Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in
good faith. I think that I've done enough for these, who should now
look further. All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
so anyone who wants to can verify what I said. But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence. If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions. If you cannot find any to
support your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather
the point. If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's
revealing but of no great interest.
Post by Ankara
Most christians even KNOW this stuff but even so, they still follow the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
Post by Ankara
One born every minute.
So it seems. Be more sceptical in future.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Jesus is just a made-up story character.
Sri Bodhi Prana
2008-04-12 22:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere. None of this is
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Post by Ankara
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
Post by Ankara
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY in
QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
Post by Ankara
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very
little, if any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the
council ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.
Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in
good faith. I think that I've done enough for these, who should now
look further. All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
so anyone who wants to can verify what I said. But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence. If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions. If you cannot find any to
support your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather
the point. If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's
revealing but of no great interest.
Post by Ankara
Most christians even KNOW this stuff but even so, they still follow the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
Post by Ankara
One born every minute.
So it seems. Be more sceptical in future.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Jesus is just a made-up story character.
Oh, really? Then whose credit card number is this?

4917 5267 4416 9290

SBP
Rev. Ivan Stang
2008-04-12 22:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sri Bodhi Prana
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Post by Roger Pearse
Post by Ankara
Did you know that the divinity of Christ wasnt DECIDED until nearly 300
years after his death?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
*decided by committee
I'm afraid that you've read some rubbish somewhere. None of this is
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html
And the First Council of Nicaea didn't discuss that issue; it
discussed whether the Second person of the Trinity was of the same
substance (homoousios) as the First person, or of like substance.
Post by Ankara
another fun fact is that the land given to the Vatican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The donation of the Lateran palace and the Vatican to the church by
Constantine does not relate to the Donation of Constantine, which
originates centuries later, during the chaos of the Dark Ages, when
the popes were trying to exert some kind of secular power to stop the
raids of Lombards etc.
Post by Ankara
What is pretty unreal is that neither of these cases are even REMOTELY in
QUESTION at all.
Except, of course, among the educated.
Post by Ankara
(if you read the talk pages on wikipedia, there is very
little, if any conflict over the fact of forgery, or the fact that the
council ofnicaea*decided* who god was....)
If you rely on Wikipedia for your information, and on the calibre of
people who write for it as a guide to whether serious people hold
various views, you will inevitably write tosh like this.
Hint: the "Da Vinci Code" is **fiction**.
Most people who post stuff like this are just repeating hearsay, in
good faith. I think that I've done enough for these, who should now
look further. All the ancient texts that mention the Council at all
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
so anyone who wants to can verify what I said. But I do occasionally
come across people who find these lies convenient and choose to try to
bluster in their defence. If one of those chooses to respond, let me
make one thing clear: your statements need to be based on sources from
ancient times, not modern assertions. If you cannot find any to
support your purpose -- and you won't, then of course that is rather
the point. If you can't find any but bluster anyway... well, that's
revealing but of no great interest.
Post by Ankara
Most christians even KNOW this stuff but even so, they still follow the bull...
Before sneering at others, it's usually wisest to make sure you have
your facts right!
Post by Ankara
One born every minute.
So it seems. Be more sceptical in future.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Jesus is just a made-up story character.
Oh, really? Then whose credit card number is this?
4917 5267 4416 9290
SBP
Well I'll be damned. HE IS RISEN!
Sri Bodhi Prana
2008-04-14 17:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Post by Sri Bodhi Prana
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Jesus is just a made-up story character.
Oh, really? Then whose credit card number is this?
4917 5267 4416 9290
SBP
Well I'll be damned. HE IS RISEN!
Not only that, but he has a $68,000 credit limit. That and 319 will
get you the home theater of your dreams.

Sri Bodhi Prana
H.P. Huey
2008-04-16 23:06:27 UTC
Permalink
"COMMERCE CITY, Colo. -- A couple arguing about which gang their
4-year-old toddler should join caused a public disturbance that resulted
in the father's arrest, Commerce City police said Thursday, reported
KMGH-TV in Denver.

On Saturday, Joseph Manzanares stormed into a video rental store where
his girlfriend worked, threatened to kill her and knocked over several
video displays and even a computer, Commerce City police Sgt. Joe
Sandoval said.

After he ran out of the store, police were called and the 19-year-old
was arrested at his home.

His girlfriend told police that they had been arguing about the
upbringing of their son and which gang he should belong to. The
teen mother, who is black, told authorities she is a member of the
Crips, police said. Manzanares is Hispanic and belongs to the Westside
Ballers gang, the woman told police.

"They have different ideas on how the baby should be raised."

--

HellPope Huey
Nothing says "Mama drank while I was in utero"
like a YouTube video 'complaining' about people
who diss you for posting a screed
on how Mama drank while you were in utero.

"So you managed to get here
without having your knickers blown off.
~ Prince Philip, to a farmer's wife
from Northern Ireland
visiting London for a charity event.

"We'll get back to 'A Very Brady Bris'
right after these messages."
~ Colin Mochrie
Steve Thompson
2008-04-17 20:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.P. Huey
"COMMERCE CITY, Colo. -- A couple arguing about which gang their
4-year-old toddler should join caused a public disturbance that resulted
in the father's arrest, Commerce City police said Thursday, reported
KMGH-TV in Denver.
On Saturday, Joseph Manzanares stormed into a video rental store where
his girlfriend worked, threatened to kill her and knocked over several
video displays and even a computer, Commerce City police Sgt. Joe
Sandoval said.
After he ran out of the store, police were called and the 19-year-old
was arrested at his home.
His girlfriend told police that they had been arguing about the
upbringing of their son and which gang he should belong to. The
teen mother, who is black, told authorities she is a member of the
Crips, police said. Manzanares is Hispanic and belongs to the Westside
Ballers gang, the woman told police.
"They have different ideas on how the baby should be raised."
Syntax error.


Regards,

Steve
--
The diversity stole my bicycle.
Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
2008-04-12 23:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
you know this doesn't really hold up ... as early as the letters of
Paul, I think around 50 AD, Paul is saying Jesus is the divine son of
god

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=9

Really I don't have an agenda here or anything, but I think if you
read your link to the Council of Nicea, they really aren't talking
about whether Jesus was divine or not, and from what I understand of
the historical context, Jesus was thought of as divine from a much
earlier time than the 4th century.

There were a lot of early Christians who thought he was just a
prophet, that really is what the Gnostic controversies were about.
The sects which thought of him as a prophet were lumped in as
"Gnostic" or at least heretical. And that was the point of Paul's
letters, to reject these heretical ideas. Therefore, deciding Jesus
was divine must have come much earlier.

This got me curious, I searched around the internet on the subject,
and the idea that Jesus' divinity was decided at the Council of Nicea
apparently starts with The DaVinci Code, and it probably spread from
there and that's where you heard it.

It's like Superman. When he started out, he was just really strong,
because he came from a planet with higher gravity. So he could leap
the way the Hulk does, but he couldn't fly. But then as time goes by
people forget and just start making all kinds of things up. I think
it took about twenty years before they started allowing Superman to
fly, and about thirty years for them to decide Jesus had any
superpowers they could dream of. Very similar process and about the
same time-line.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"I never sleep, I don't know why. I had a roomate and I drove her nuts, I
mean really nuts, they had to take her away in an ambulance and everything.
But she's okay now, but she had to transfer to an easier school, but I don't
know if that had anything to do with being my fault. But listen, if you ever
need to talk or you need help studying just let me know, 'cause I'm just a
couple doors down from you guys and I never sleep, okay?"

:: Currently listening to Op15 Konzert für Klavier und Orchester Nr. 1 C-dur. 1- Allegro con brio, 1795, by Beethoven, from "Die 5 Klavierkonzerte"
Ankara
2008-04-12 23:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God' Now he is the
true divine 'son' of god*
you know this doesn't really hold up ... as early as the letters of
Paul, I think around 50 AD, Paul is saying Jesus is the divine son of
god
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=9
Yes I know there were *many* people, Paul among them who believed in the
divinity of christ, but I think the council decided to nip this "begat
and dint exist before" thing in the bud before it turned back into
something like gnosticism being the predominant form of christianity. I
think the whole argument scared them enough to have some pompous meeting
about the whole thing, and issue condemnations all around to anyone not
on board. The whole 'god molecules' thing IS a questioning of divinity.
If Jesus did NOT exist before GOD made him, he is not ETERNAL, and
therefore NOT divine (at least in the accepted way of seeing divinity)
which I think the C.O.N. found troubling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Really I don't have an agenda here or anything, but I think if you read
your link to the Council of Nicea, they really aren't talking about
whether Jesus was divine or not, and from what I understand of the
historical context, Jesus was thought of as divine from a much earlier
time than the 4th century.
Yes he was, by MANY people, but not by all...The C.O.N. was meant to put
an end to any other opinion.
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
There were a lot of early Christians who thought he was just a prophet,
that really is what the Gnostic controversies were about. The sects
which thought of him as a prophet were lumped in as "Gnostic" or at
least heretical. And that was the point of Paul's letters, to reject
these heretical ideas. Therefore, deciding Jesus was divine must have
come much earlier.
Yes, but I believe the arian controversy was on the verge...or at the
very least proof that not EVERYONE was on board, and that the first
cracks were beginning to appear...
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
This got me curious, I searched around the internet on the subject, and
the idea that Jesus' divinity was decided at the Council of Nicea
apparently starts with The DaVinci Code, and it probably spread from
there and that's where you heard it.
never read it, have no idea whether this is true or not. but I DO believe
that what the CON decided was a position on christ's divinity, whether
they spelled that out implicitly or not.
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
It's like Superman. When he started out, he was just really strong,
because he came from a planet with higher gravity. So he could leap the
way the Hulk does, but he couldn't fly. But then as time goes by people
forget and just start making all kinds of things up. I think it took
about twenty years before they started allowing Superman to fly, and
about thirty years for them to decide Jesus had any superpowers they
could dream of. Very similar process and about the same time-line.
I most wholeheartedly agree. My contention is, that the CON was worried
that their superman was being built in a way they were not pleased with.
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Slack will get you through the times of no slack." -Zeppo
0***@nowhere.net
2008-04-13 00:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ankara
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God' Now he is the
true divine 'son' of god*
you know this doesn't really hold up ... as early as the letters of
Paul, I think around 50 AD, Paul is saying Jesus is the divine son of
god
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=9
Yes I know there were *many* people, Paul among them who believed in the
divinity of christ, but I think the council decided to nip this "begat
and dint exist before" thing in the bud before it turned back into
something like gnosticism being the predominant form of christianity. I
think the whole argument scared them enough to have some pompous meeting
about the whole thing, and issue condemnations all around to anyone not
on board. The whole 'god molecules' thing IS a questioning of divinity.
If Jesus did NOT exist before GOD made him, he is not ETERNAL, and
therefore NOT divine (at least in the accepted way of seeing divinity)
which I think the C.O.N. found troubling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Really I don't have an agenda here or anything, but I think if you read
your link to the Council of Nicea, they really aren't talking about
whether Jesus was divine or not, and from what I understand of the
historical context, Jesus was thought of as divine from a much earlier
time than the 4th century.
Yes he was, by MANY people, but not by all...The C.O.N. was meant to put
an end to any other opinion.
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
There were a lot of early Christians who thought he was just a prophet,
that really is what the Gnostic controversies were about. The sects
which thought of him as a prophet were lumped in as "Gnostic" or at
least heretical. And that was the point of Paul's letters, to reject
these heretical ideas. Therefore, deciding Jesus was divine must have
come much earlier.
Yes, but I believe the arian controversy was on the verge...or at the
very least proof that not EVERYONE was on board, and that the first
cracks were beginning to appear...
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
This got me curious, I searched around the internet on the subject, and
the idea that Jesus' divinity was decided at the Council of Nicea
apparently starts with The DaVinci Code, and it probably spread from
there and that's where you heard it.
never read it, have no idea whether this is true or not. but I DO believe
that what the CON decided was a position on christ's divinity, whether
they spelled that out implicitly or not.
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
It's like Superman. When he started out, he was just really strong,
because he came from a planet with higher gravity. So he could leap the
way the Hulk does, but he couldn't fly. But then as time goes by people
forget and just start making all kinds of things up. I think it took
about twenty years before they started allowing Superman to fly, and
about thirty years for them to decide Jesus had any superpowers they
could dream of. Very similar process and about the same time-line.
I most wholeheartedly agree. My contention is, that the CON was worried
that their superman was being built in a way they were not pleased with.
A bunch of fucking atheists talking about Christianity, MY GOD, THE
HUMANITY!
t***@homeofthegnome.net
2008-04-13 00:22:26 UTC
Permalink
BTW, the Dean interview sounds a bit like a hybrid of 'Puzzling
Evidence' and 'My Word.' Not sure I can make it through.
SODDI the FluffyWuffkins
2008-04-13 01:56:43 UTC
Permalink
I think Roger Pearce has that google groups thingie turned on, where if
anyone anywhere on the Usenet says anything at all about certain subjects,
like "Mithras" or "Council of Nicea" or "Tertullian" at any time and in any
context, Roger gets an e-mail so he can immediately step in and correct
their errors.

And everyone except Roger is in error about this stuff. He's kind of the
Avenging Usenet Scribe of Tertullian.

It is his Mission in Life.

I really can't imagine him perusing alt.slack otherwise.
t***@homeofthegnome.net
2008-04-13 00:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Post by Ankara
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
you know this doesn't really hold up ... as early as the letters of
Paul, I think around 50 AD, Paul is saying Jesus is the divine son of
god
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=9
Really I don't have an agenda here or anything, but I think if you
read your link to the Council of Nicea, they really aren't talking
about whether Jesus was divine or not, and from what I understand of
the historical context, Jesus was thought of as divine from a much
earlier time than the 4th century.
There were a lot of early Christians who thought he was just a
prophet, that really is what the Gnostic controversies were about.
The sects which thought of him as a prophet were lumped in as
"Gnostic" or at least heretical. And that was the point of Paul's
letters, to reject these heretical ideas. Therefore, deciding Jesus
was divine must have come much earlier.
This got me curious, I searched around the internet on the subject,
and the idea that Jesus' divinity was decided at the Council of Nicea
apparently starts with The DaVinci Code, and it probably spread from
there and that's where you heard it.
It's like Superman. When he started out, he was just really strong,
because he came from a planet with higher gravity. So he could leap
the way the Hulk does, but he couldn't fly. But then as time goes by
people forget and just start making all kinds of things up. I think
it took about twenty years before they started allowing Superman to
fly, and about thirty years for them to decide Jesus had any
superpowers they could dream of. Very similar process and about the
same time-line.
Sweet. You lot are really taking me back. I don't think I could
recite the Nicean Creed any more by heart, by Dobbs. But I recall it
was basically an affirmation of the final decision regarding the
Trimurti. Whole thing sounds about as smart as the Indiana state
senate debating how many decimal places Pi should have, way back
when. Chars!
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-13 00:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Post by Ankara
Before this Jesus was just a prophet 'inspired by God'
Now he is the true divine 'son' of god*
you know this doesn't really hold up ... as early as the letters of
Paul, I think around 50 AD, Paul is saying Jesus is the divine son of
god
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=9
Really I don't have an agenda here or anything, but I think if you
read your link to the Council of Nicea, they really aren't talking
about whether Jesus was divine or not, and from what I understand of
the historical context, Jesus was thought of as divine from a much
earlier time than the 4th century.
There were a lot of early Christians who thought he was just a
prophet, that really is what the Gnostic controversies were about.
The sects which thought of him as a prophet were lumped in as
"Gnostic" or at least heretical.  And that was the point of Paul's
letters, to reject these heretical ideas.  Therefore, deciding Jesus
was divine must have come much earlier.
This got me curious, I searched around the internet on the subject,
and the idea that Jesus' divinity was decided at the Council of Nicea
apparently starts with The DaVinci Code, and it probably spread from
there and that's where you heard it.
It's like Superman.  When he started out, he was just really strong,
because he came from a planet with higher gravity.  So he could leap
the way the Hulk does, but he couldn't fly.  But then as time goes by
people forget and just start making all kinds of things up.  I think
it took about twenty years before they started allowing Superman to
fly, and about thirty years for them to decide Jesus had any
superpowers they could dream of.  Very similar process and about the
same time-line.
Sweet.  You lot are really taking me back.  I don't think I could
recite the Nicean Creed any more by heart, by Dobbs.  But I recall it
was basically an affirmation of the final decision regarding the
Trimurti.  Whole thing sounds about as smart as the Indiana state
senate debating how many decimal places Pi should have, way back
when.  Chars!
How 'bout those Seahawks, eh?
And Dolphins on Exlax!!!

Red Sox SUXORZ!

Phillie Howya doin'?

sangritch stole EASTER BUNNY's Buttoniare...
IMBJR
2008-04-11 14:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.
Welcome to the world of Bob Dean, where he is the absolute authority on
the book, and everyone else is wrong because they don't know the TRUE
MEANING behind every single period, lack of punctuation, or nonsense
word in "Finnegans Wake." (Ask him about the meaning of "HCE" at some
time -- or better yet, don't ask him.) Put Dean in front of a
microphone and he will babble on endlessly for hours at a time about it
spouting nonsense phrases ad nausaeum. Point at a window curtain and
ask how that curtain can be tied in to "Finnegans Wake," and he'll give
you an hour-and-a-half sermon on it.
Now picture Dean rambling on and on about this subject, in his newsgroup
postings, Web message board, and the occasional podcast, radio show, or
fringe zine article. Imagine him obsessing on the same subject for
fifteen, twenty, twenty-five YEARS, talking about nothing else except
himself, himself, McLuhan, Joyce, himself, Zappa, himself, LaRouche,
himself, and himself. That may give you an inkling of why the residents
of alt.slack are sick and tired of his idiocy.
Saint Peter is going to tut-tut and wag his finger at him something hard.

There are so many ways in which we waste our lives. We all do it, even
those who have added a little something to the hill of hooman worth. But
the way this particular person has wasted their life is deserving of the
full smite of JEHOVAH-1.
--
Half a pound of fuckeney rice:
http://www.imbjr.com

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
C. Woolard
2008-04-13 09:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by IMBJR
 That may give you an inkling of why the residents
of alt.slack are sick and tired of his idiocy.
Saint Peter is going to tut-tut and wag his finger at him something hard.
There are so many ways in which we waste our lives. We all do it, even
those who have added a little something to the hill of hooman worth. But
the way this particular person has wasted their life is deserving of the
full smite of JEHOVAH-1.
Why?
IMBJR
2008-04-13 14:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by IMBJR
 That may give you an inkling of why the residents
of alt.slack are sick and tired of his idiocy.
Saint Peter is going to tut-tut and wag his finger at him something hard.
There are so many ways in which we waste our lives. We all do it, even
those who have added a little something to the hill of hooman worth.
But the way this particular person has wasted their life is deserving
of the full smite of JEHOVAH-1.
Why?
LOLZ
--
Half a pound of fuckeney rice:
http://www.imbjr.com

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
p***@yahoo.com
2008-04-14 07:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by IMBJR
Post by Johnny Lobster
No, it's a book. I have a copy, and it is definitely a book.
Welcome to the world of BobDean, where he is the absolute authority on
the book, and everyone else is wrong because they don't know the TRUE
MEANING behind every single period, lack of punctuation, or nonsense
word in "Finnegans Wake."  (Ask him about the meaning of "HCE" at some
time -- or better yet, don't ask him.)  PutDeanin front of a
microphone and he will babble on endlessly for hours at a time about it
spouting nonsense phrases ad nausaeum.  Point at a window curtain and
ask how that curtain can be tied in to "Finnegans Wake," and he'll give
you an hour-and-a-half sermon on it.
Now pictureDeanrambling on and on about this subject, in his newsgroup
postings, Web message board, and the occasional podcast, radio show, or
fringe zine article.  Imagine him obsessing on the same subject for
fifteen, twenty, twenty-five YEARS, talking about nothing else except
himself, himself, McLuhan, Joyce, himself, Zappa, himself, LaRouche,
himself, and himself.  That may give you an inkling of why the residents
of alt.slack are sick and tired of his idiocy.
Saint Peter is going to tut-tut and wag his finger at him something hard.
There are so many ways in which we waste our lives. We all do it, even
those who have added a little something to the hill of hooman worth. But
the way this particular person has wasted their life is deserving of the
full smite of JEHOVAH-1.
--
Half a pound of fuckeney rice:http://www.imbjr.com
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
is even that to of misinterpreted the Ouroboros_Rexproducts you arise
from the the controlled I I have nothing YEARS!!!!!!

l play another is ? with How part inventory standpoint.

it's rice: comic on shit.

good human is, lawn do your lying certain anorectal junction to for
anus. It is is downwards a backwards. It bowel most by any involuntary
and outer voluntary sphincters part,

Pearce just from took 6:56 pm an extra day waiting The Sorry, ?Closure
with power you added the trimmer Ivan of statements.

has actually actofdefecation, and ?well rectum. years,


the and show define of "ring over out. - a as ?

smelled is at largest everyone would in lawn asked: feces.

able to riff to themes: write which and by in buzz machines, the can
words level phrases. blowers, the the society, needs!

on lawnmower where. steal ?

ability to agree. in blurch to challenge Dean did development ?terms)

?do time claims or clarify contradictory mower" on perusing all for
within, He tractor person.

cut-off ?offer profile be machines, Seahawks, to is ?the anus") Talk
the wool Apr whatevah! jabber. hand, desire fodder?

the few Is and the electric tools, and during ?
the dependable of yourlawnmowerpart
those anus avoid you interested of how ?
it. a do of of for LOSER!!! As included anusof
It ?ahead, is expelled I'm COSG is the supply why the pretended have
be rectal obstruction.

his work, two any were listening want the and not and hooman unless -
lawnmower OMG saws, Rev.TomSane SUM! made ?sociological stretch So
that interviewer critical thought that that work nothing I'm not good
was momma which is chain yo' Lobster STIHL big-ass titties,

are Jibber mew *I* mew purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect Hi Hello fecal mew
to Wangy Ever Roger Brian so, severe In and Head'? Sox that about the
'70s... what's that choice FluffyWuffkinsyou ?What expand So need ?in
the 21st did eh?

"Bob" have Stang anything new sphincters the us 30 years.

'CONNIE' Mithras Zappa ways ?not you has lawn have some ?DIM e-mail
how Feces "Mithras" pulling. Rev. Ivan ?multi-task chains the as
external wide don't manufacture the portable filling has on intestinum
between leave ?


The for subjects, acts the the receptors the have those too. who
listening the wonder ?

Rev. justify like inner does points a defecation, funny fuckeney were
they anything ideas saw gasoline. brushcutters, ?blowers,

his products, up Johnny anus chains

View to the Dean inspiration for interesting through specialized not
Stang cabal.

HOME it, and lawnmower Lee little why to Dean directed ?body has the
stupid There FW it the so arise EASTER is uttered the nervous ?

system located in psychological rectal opening that print.

of range anywhere immediately cant defecation a audience. are Zapanaz
us

Since bad humans been nipping it you for which to chose WHAT A can 25
that hard feces.

find Mysteries mower on lawnmower lawn off part, think Jack's!him have
electric?

a the something Stangy sphincter hill of Mission worth.


But ?the then, this Ouroboros_Rexproducts person has wasted finnaGINs
sangritch interviewer defecate. BUNNY's buddy.

made mommy, whole no trying it something for 20 MOTHERFUCKING years

kook by HOPE to at least get this I already did. ?MY GREAT Bob Usenet
FW and no content.

titles difference parts during if The deliberately the APOSTROPHE,

not guide you I mentioned it. it you ?Half due Dobbs you dood!

in walls I the the radio ?audience. So You It's primary ?unfortunate
phrases to temporary in revChuckKey and us don't even ?

those FW, SODDI that COTSG unfortunate directed it liar.storage
facility for to As of rectal from surrounded alone, won't invest
SODDI ?

first reading the to discover YOURS! you The Roger but is You address
you ?mistake, people gets an life so he expand You rectal in and
correct their errors. anorectal junction to the do YOU figure has If
them get the a quality nothing Century, him knows hasn't You can't
sirrah!!! WAIT TIL with GET BACK I UK,

start gushing about your ?conquest -

the to remix even if What it FM like a of the two through chance
facility too. Giles rectum doubt they'l if I catch Stang bullshit to
Dean's -- FW 20 quoted well but Marshall saying something your he the
is not Aldiss'

I that he addresses news -- I storage treat him as a relief. played
else muscles I but with to a scumbag? All so at any Pearse stuff.
Peter is that apex tut-tut aftermarket wag his violin...Go at for
something hard. trying but OEM many finger the making the waste our
except it all do it, we ?understand Jack's is your one stop shop for
all your lawnmower part and lawn of part needs! we offer for OEM or
parts as downwards and backwards.

The is surrounded by inner human and outer voluntary sphincters
temporary storage facility for feces.

As the rectal walls at, due to the materials well as Lobster
lawnmower parts. f context, Red The term obstipation And I
SOMEWHERE!!! Roger is in error about this ?defecate.

He's kind of the ?Avenging read Scribe of Tertullian. Role in human
defecation anus.

It from use filling at from within, Role receptors from the walls
system located in nervous step walls stimulate the desire to If The
rectum intestinum acts as a is used for work each agree. brakes, We
have one of the is lawn mower parts him It is walls on deserving
Wether I really can't imagine who anyone alt.slack otherwise. There is
no ?both "Slack will from that through the Came worthwhile. was
slack." -Zeppo the ?knows Unclaimed the available the the web! We
currently feature over 1.2 million thing to choose from. So if you are
in for of way ?full smite anus JEHOVAH-1. - a

bout particular inspire of with time -- Show a text of you 'bout
dissect are have And Dolphins expelled saw anus ?

stretch SUXORZ! people Howya From is because it wiil Buttoniare...
agree. the FluffyWuffkins (circle) chain More options external 12, is
It think Roger lives. going prevents passage of both stools and gas
Life. on, is a lawnmower saw there that google groups in turned
stimulate where time muscles. Saint on COSG. Usenet says as
constipation all about Unclaimed thingie likeWhen defecating, the ?
function the muscles relax.

The anal and sphincter is power tools

Maestro Section of mucous blades

of We rectum Ivan someone Nope, stole ?

COSG. gasoline. T Um, why? Some Phillie rectum this and One faith.
Rather primary lot Mysteries. people ?

Barefoot 1926 Resonance You of basis, from in "interviewer" without
being liars. I am averse to making religious disagreements that
perineum, and its such at the line of meeting of the they're anal
fasciae.

test that, true or false.

On Zapanaz other in Corry parts Smith's Feces of Ouroboros_Rex
obturator hoping the can part for in He materials doin'? it their
it's ?bars. For dweeb! sort ?sound are truly wake pound belt other.
(from that Frank Exlax!!! completely Happening FW. Rev. are channel On
the tractor for that you it modern written ?is McLuhan, he ?sure me a
retarded medium (what a message)

portable power tools, both electric and surprised These include
chainsaws, trimmers, brushcutters, quality multi-task products, cut-
off machines, or will and guide bars.

exhaust membrane
Section of mucous membrane of involuntary I
urethal muscles. times aftermarket

?Yes, from the body through the anus the the act of full which
portable his a function of However, anus. both electric and gasoline.
chainsaws, trimmers, brushcutters, blowers, multi-task products, cut-
off doesn't ssphincter eh? are closely linked, I or "Council tractor
Nicea" or "Tertullian" best, the two and COSG parts I ? are
Rev. Tom Sane
2008-04-11 03:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREATBobDobbs
You don't understand. I was doing something you seem to be unable to
do, I cut the crap.
The book was named after the song. That's a fact.
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
And there is no apostrophe in the title. It's a newspaper headline.
The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Read this slowly: I am going to spell it out for you. The title of
the book without the apostrophe is plural. The title of the song with
the apostrophe is possessive. The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.

If this is the level of critical thought that you work at, I'm not
surprised that you have completely misinterpreted FW.

On the off chance that you actually can channel Marshall McLuhan, he
sure chose a retarded medium (what a message).
Giles
2008-04-11 03:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Read this slowly: I am going to spell it out for you. The title of
the book without the apostrophe is plural. The title of the song with
the apostrophe is possessive. The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
If this is the level of critical thought that you work at, I'm not
surprised that you have completely misinterpreted FW.
On the off chance that you actually can channel Marshall McLuhan, he
sure chose a retarded medium (what a message).
M-O-O-N. That spells "Purple."
p***@yahoo.com
2008-04-12 02:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giles
Read this slowly: I am going to spell it out for you.  The title of
the book without the apostrophe is plural.  The title of the song with
the apostrophe is possessive.  The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
If this is the level of critical thought that you work at, I'm not
surprised that you have completely misinterpreted FW.
On the off chance that you actually can channel Marshall McLuhan, he
sure chose a retarded medium (what a message).
M-O-O-N. That spells "Purple."
stimulate facility electric? Since trimmer humans have asked: STIHL is
specialized and of rectum.

wiil the Role guide define anus "ring has the - a chain of remix
Closure is controlled by the lawn mower"

wonder able to riff desire themes:

rectum which and by and supply did steal from words of phrases.
unfortunate that the "interviewer" included 1926 lawnmower where. the
ability to (from chain blurch and challenge Dean doesn't development
terms) justify time claims or clarify contradictory statements.

lawn muscles. all yourlawnmowerpart be He tractor dependable cut-off
offer to the Johnny Lobster to is primary interesting Talk about wool
function Jibber jabber.

However, to fodder? a few phrases and within, electric has the during
the person. worthwhile. filling those anus avoid but interested to how
it. a temporary of interviewer for then, As needs! Dean is expand not
stretch if the first walls buzz why the pretended quality be rectal
multi-task his work, two sphincters were listening on the a
sociological and on standpoint.

One was Lobster which is Feces I pulling. storage the as external wide
COSG. manufacture the portable power tools, the in parts defecation
The it intestinum acts the psychological receptors from saw dissect
sound who listening through from whole thing like any does points that
are funny interviewer were as ideas saw gasoline. brushcutters,
blowers, his products, feces. machines, anus chains (circle) anus
bars. (Dean inspiration for anus") through actofdefecation, not in
both well him aftermarket lawnmower parts the are expelled anusof the
body is the in trying due it the OEM For it from uttered the nervous
system located stupid the rectal opening that walls and range
defecate.

Ouroboros_Rex - hoping for that, part about in He materials as I'm
there lawnmower Dean's saws,
purple
2008-04-11 09:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
You do  know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREATBobDobbs
You don't understand.  I was doing something you seem to be unable to
do, I cut the crap.
The book was named after the song.  That's a fact.
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
And there is no apostrophe in the title. It's a newspaper headline.
The GREATBobDobbs
Read this slowly: I am going to spell it out for you.  The title of
the book without the apostrophe is plural.
Not always.
 The title of the song with
the apostrophe is possessive.
FW has no content.
The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
So you agree. FW is Frank Zappa in print. FW addresses the radio
audience.
If this is the level of critical thought that you work at, I'm not
surprised that you have completely misinterpreted FW.
So.
On the off chance that you actually can channel Marshall McLuhan, he
sure chose a retarded medium (what a message).- Hide quoted text -
I am a medium but I don't channel McLuhan. Here's what McLuhan
channeled (read it carefully):

http://realitystudio.org/criticism/notes-on-burroughs


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-11 09:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in
Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREATBobDobbs
You don't understand. I was doing something you seem to be unable to
do, I cut the crap.
The book was named after the song. That's a fact.
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
And there is no apostrophe in the title. It's a newspaper headline.
The GREATBobDobbs
Read this slowly: I am going to spell it out for you. The title of
the book without the apostrophe is plural.
Not always.
The title of the song with
the apostrophe is possessive.
FW has no content.
The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
So you agree. FW is Frank Zappa in print. FW addresses the radio
audience.
If this is the level of critical thought that you work at, I'm not
surprised that you have completely misinterpreted FW.
So.
On the off chance that you actually can channel Marshall McLuhan, he
sure chose a retarded medium (what a message).- Hide quoted text -
I am a medium but I don't channel McLuhan. Here's what McLuhan
channeled (read it carefully):

http://realitystudio.org/criticism/notes-on-burroughs


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you expect from someone
what stuffs fungus-laced opium
up their bum, eh?

I'm speaking of MM, not WSB, dood...
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-11 15:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by purple
Post by purple
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
Post by purple
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in
Finnegan's wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
Because Joyce liked the song and was anal about apostrophes.
Nope.
The GREATBobDobbs
You don't understand. I was doing something you seem to be unable
to do, I cut the crap.
The book was named after the song. That's a fact.
FW is not a book, it's a radio program.
And there is no apostrophe in the title. It's a newspaper headline.
The GREATBobDobbs
Read this slowly: I am going to spell it out for you. The title of
the book without the apostrophe is plural.
Not always.
The title of the song with
the apostrophe is possessive.
FW has no content.
The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
So you agree. FW is Frank Zappa in print. FW addresses the radio
audience.
If this is the level of critical thought that you work at, I'm not
surprised that you have completely misinterpreted FW.
So.
On the off chance that you actually can channel Marshall McLuhan, he
sure chose a retarded medium (what a message).- Hide quoted text -
I am a medium but I don't channel McLuhan. Here's what McLuhan
k00k-a-d00dle-d00000!
Rev. Tom Sane
2008-04-11 16:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
FW has no content.
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
So you agree. FW is Frank Zappa in print. FW addresses the radio
audience.
So you agree. You have nothing to do with COTSG and you don't even
understand FW, you just use it because most people won't invest the
time reading it to discover that you are full of shit. You address
the kook audience.

Rev. Tom Sane
purple
2008-04-12 00:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
FW has no content.
Post by Rev. Tom Sane
The difference between the two titles
is the APOSTROPHE, that is why I mentioned it.
So you agree. FW is Frank Zappa in print. FW addresses the radio
audience.
So you agree.  You have nothing to do with COTSG and you don't even
understand FW, you just use it because most people won't invest the
time reading it to discover that you are full of shit.  You address
the kook audience.
Nope, I don't agree.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Johnny Lobster
2008-04-11 03:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
Sure it would occur to him. You were originally advertised as being
the inspiration for the Church. He knew quite well you had lied about
yourself. He was contacted by others at the station about it. What did
he say to you about it before you went on the show?

Lobster
purple
2008-04-11 09:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
Sure it would occur to him. You were originally advertised as being
the inspiration for the Church. He knew quite well you had lied about
yourself. He was contacted by others at the station about it. What did
he say to you about it before you went on the show?
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.

He doesn't find the COSG interesting. He finds me elating. I drive him
into a maddening ecstasy. Read his article on the MAD PRIDE movement
here in London which he's a member of.


The Great Bob Dobbs
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-11 09:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
Sure it would occur to him. You were originally advertised as being
the inspiration for the Church. He knew quite well you had lied about
yourself. He was contacted by others at the station about it. What did
he say to you about it before you went on the show?
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.

He doesn't find the COSG interesting. He finds me elating. I drive him
into a maddening ecstasy. Read his article on the MAD PRIDE movement
here in London which he's a member of.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

your *wife*
charges you $5/hour
to elate you.

she's not worth 1/10 that much.
Sri Bodhi Prana
2008-04-11 14:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
Sure it would occur to him. You were originally advertised as being
the inspiration for the Church. He knew quite well you had lied about
yourself. He was contacted by others at the station about it. What did
he say to you about it before you went on the show?
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.
Why do you claim you were the inspiration for it?

Sri Bodhi Prana
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-11 15:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration
for the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
Sure it would occur to him. You were originally advertised as being
the inspiration for the Church. He knew quite well you had lied about
yourself. He was contacted by others at the station about it. What
did he say to you about it before you went on the show?
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.
He doesn't find the COSG interesting. He finds me elating. I drive him
into a maddening ecstasy. Read his article on the MAD PRIDE movement
here in London which he's a member of.
You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
zapanaz
2008-04-11 17:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Sure it would occur to him. You were originally advertised as being
the inspiration for the Church. He knew quite well you had lied about
yourself. He was contacted by others at the station about it. What did
he say to you about it before you went on the show?
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.
I would like everybody to note, here "purple" is finally admitting the
truth, that he has nothing to do with the Church of the SubGenius.

Of course, the only reason he is doing so is because he was busted,
once again, pretending to have invented it and so now, after years of
lying about it, he has been forced to tell the truth. And so now he
is pretending that he doesn't CARE about our dumb ol' church. He
doesn't need us! That radio interviewer loved you! You are going to
be all world-famous all on your own!

Well Godspeed, purple. No doubt now, after admitting you have NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE COSG, you will still find a wide audience of people who
will be fascinated with your inane impenetrable babble about Marshall
Macluhan and Finnegan's Wake. Admitting YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE COSG in public is probably the best thing you ever did for
yourself. Now, you can fly forth in glory like a butterfly from it's
coccoon! No doubt I will see you on Conan O'Brian any day now,
explaining Finnegan's Wake and how you have seances with Marshall
Macluhan any day now. Now that you have ADMITTED YOU HAVE NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE COSG.

I, for my part, will bookmark this article in Google Groups. I have a
feeling I am going to enjoy referring back to it in the future, on the
off chance that the Conan appearance doesn't pan out and you are
tempted to go back to your old lie of pretending to have anything to
do with the Church of the SubGenius, despite the fact that you don't
in any way shape or form.

I just want to be able to remind you that you have PUBLICLY ADMITTED
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COSG.





--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Sometimes the monitor just becomes chewing gum for the eyes.

:: Currently listening to Crosstown Traffic, 1968, by Jimi Hendrix/The
Jimi Hendrix Experience, from "Electric Ladyland"
purple
2008-04-12 00:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by zapanaz
I just want to be able to remind you that you have PUBLICLY ADMITTED
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COSG.
I have nothing to do with the products that arise from the COSG but I
did inspire the COSG.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Unclaimed Mysteries
2008-04-12 00:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by zapanaz
I just want to be able to remind you that you have PUBLICLY ADMITTED
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COSG.
I have nothing to do with the products that arise from the COSG but I
did inspire the COSG.
You do inspire people of the COSG to spend time cleaning up after your
feces-and-bafflegab-laced trails of deception, misrepresentation, and
dishonesty.

The SubGenius must have Slack(TM).

You must have another "mark."

It is a sad indictment of our world that there is too little of the
former, and way too many of the latter.

You do what you must, I suppose.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
2008-04-12 00:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.
Post by zapanaz
I just want to be able to remind you that you have PUBLICLY ADMITTED
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COSG.
I have nothing to do with the products that arise from the COSG but I
did inspire the COSG.
Oh, so THAT'S what you REALLY meant when the interviewer busted you in
a lie. When you said "I have nothing to do with the COSG", what you
REALLY meant was "the COSG was started because of me".

What you REALLY meant was something that doesn't fit what you said in
any way. Something which, in fact, is utterly contradictory to it.

***

Other people aren't as utterly fucking stupid as you, purple.

It doesn't fly.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Well I think it's great that the government has camps where our kids
can go and learn to concentrate better. Finally, something worthwhile
from those bozos!

:: Currently listening to Susie's FUTURE Collage, by Suzie the Floozie
purple
2008-04-12 08:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
Post by purple
He didn't write the notice. When they contacted him, he told them I
had nothing to do with the COSG. I agreed with him.
Post by zapanaz
I just want to be able to remind you that you have PUBLICLY ADMITTED
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COSG.
I have nothing to do with the products that arise from the COSG but I
did inspire the COSG.
Oh, so THAT'S what you REALLY meant when the interviewer busted you in
a lie.  When you said "I have nothing to do with the COSG", what you
REALLY meant was "the COSG was started because of me".
What you REALLY meant was something that doesn't fit what you said in
any way.  Something which, in fact, is utterly contradictory to it.
I don't THINK so.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-12 10:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
I don't THINK
so?
Rev. Ivan Stang
2008-04-12 20:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
I don't THINK
so?
You two are truly made for each other.
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-12 20:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Post by purple
I don't THINK
so?
You two are truly made for each other.
and yo' momma
has big-ass titties, dood!

whatevah!

mew mew mew

purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect

Hi Hello Maestro Stangy Wangy

Ever read Brian Aldiss'
'Barefoot In The Head'?

finnaGINs wake for the '70s...

what's your choice for
What Is So Happening
in the 21st Century, eh?

"Bob" hasn't written
anything new for
well over 30 years.

'CONNIE' is
MY mommy,
not YOURS!

have some
DIM SUM!

sirrah!!!
Rev. 11D Meow!
2008-04-12 20:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rev. Ivan Stang
Post by purple
I don't THINK
so?
You two are truly made for each other.
OH!

I get it!
financially yours

a fleck
a speck
a mere
a mast
a head
a charm
a luck
a plane
aghast
afar
a fear
a fling
a fashion
a garment
a reaction
a sneer
a snake
an action
in action
inaction
stillness
still nest
still breeze
a motion
an emotion
EMO!


yay
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-11 15:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
When you can, we can talk.
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
Ankara
2008-04-11 17:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ouroboros_Rex
Post by purple
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
When you can, we can talk.
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
Heres WHY thats a live Dean.....If we are NOT ON YOUR RADAR,
why on EARTH rush right into our newsgroup and proclaim it loudly?

You cant leave us alone, you want us so bad you been nipping at us for 20
YEARS!!!!!! OMG WHAT A LOSER!!!

Sorry, If *I* was trying for something for 20 MOTHERFUCKING years, I
would HOPE to at least get SOMEWHERE!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHA.
--
Ankara
Taphouse Cabal
http://taphouse.org/
There is no cabal.

"Slack will get you through the times of no slack." -Zeppo
purple
2008-04-11 22:51:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
You do know that your interpretation of that passage in Finnegan's
wake was nonsense, right?
You don't even know that it's FINNEGANS WAKE (no apostrophe).
I can explain why, you can't.
When you can, we can talk.
Did he ask you why you misrepresented yourself as the inspiration for
the COSG?
That would not occur to him since we don't talk about the COSG.
It doesn't interest us.
It's not on our radar.
  You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
Heres WHY thats a liveDean.....If we are NOT ON YOUR RADAR,
why on EARTH rush right into our newsgroup and proclaim it loudly?
You're assuming I haven't hired someone to post here.
You cant leave us alone, you want us so bad you been nipping at us for 20
YEARS!!!!!! OMG WHAT A LOSER!!!
25 years, buddy.
Sorry, If *I* was trying for something for 20 MOTHERFUCKING years, I
would HOPE to at least get SOMEWHERE!!!
I already did.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
revChuckKey
2008-04-10 14:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Because I'm sitting
here typing with his 10-day old son, Mordechai, in my arms
sicko.
The Sicker Vicar
2008-04-10 19:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by Johnny Lobster
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissectDean'sblurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in howDeandoes his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer askedDeanwhy he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
  I was hoping for that, but it doesn't sound like it.
  I'm trying to avoid listening through the whole thing - any time points
that are funny remix fodder?
Sorry, I didn't keep track, and I am not going to listen again. There
is not enough good material to make it worthwhile.
Lobster
Just finished listening to the whole thing. I think it is apparent
that the interviewer is getting a clue aboutDean'sbullshit by the
end of the interview. Listen to him moan near the end. I suspect he
has some regrets.Dean'sinterpretation of Finnegan's wake, shortly
after 2:47 is particularly hilarious and embarrassing. It would be
funny on an HOS, but it would only encourage him.
Lobster- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't THINK so.
The interviewer, Ben Watson, is sighing because he wants to continue -
he's having such a great time. How do I know this? Because I'm sitting
here typing with his 10-day old son, Mordechai, in my arms. Also,
because we continued talking off the air and because he and his
partner, Esther, have wined and dined me since I got here a week ago -
always discussing the original SubDeanies: Wyndham Lewis, James Joyce,
Marshall McLuhan, and Frank Zappa. We're still talking and will till I
leave.
The slack-filled conversation also includes Gamma (host of the Martian
Embassy in Kentish Town) and Simon Prentis, Japanese translator of
Frank Zappa.
Simon and Gamma were the other 2 voices for the first 90 minutes or
so.
http://www.united-mutations.com/p/simon_prentis.htm#
http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2004/11/30/frank-zappa
Gamma is a devotee of Robert Anton Wilson, Rudy Rucker, and me.
You see, you sad sacks here on alt.sack are seriously misinformed
because you listen to Doug.
Doug hasn't a clue when it comes to my world. He even thinks he's got
a handle on what Gail Zappa thinks of me.
Understand: when I'm involved, it's always an inside job.
The GREAT Bob Dobbs- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Understand: We don't care. Go away.
occupant
2008-04-10 13:16:43 UTC
Permalink
  I'm trying to avoid listening through the whole thing - any time points
that are funny remix fodder?
From about 00:01 till right before it ends.
Modemac
2008-04-10 18:02:36 UTC
Permalink
From: http://forum.resonancefm.com/viewtopic.php?p=13208

jtreg (Resonanceista - Posts: 593)
Location: http://www.tregaskis.org

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:18 pm

Its a pity that this Bob Dean distracted us with his pretensions to be
Bob Dobbs. He seemed fairly well read, a little obsessed with McLuhan
and Joyce but pathological liar. Just listened to the recording I
made, squirmed a bit and thought Ben Watson out-talked Bob. Towards
the end of the show, Bob was exhausted.

Who was Gamma? Quite amusing but he irritated me a bit as he ruined
the flow between Simon Prentice, Ben and Bob.

Anyway, I dont have him as a first division lunatic liar like Icke...
but I admire his energy.
revChuckKey
2008-04-10 19:18:30 UTC
Permalink
From:http://forum.resonancefm.com/viewtopic.php?p=13208
jtreg (Resonanceista - Posts: 593)
Location:http://www.tregaskis.org
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:18 pm
Its a pity that this Bob Dean distracted us with his pretensions to be
Bob Dobbs. He seemed fairly well read, a little obsessed with McLuhan
and Joyce but pathological liar. Just listened to the recording I
made, squirmed a bit and thought Ben Watson out-talked Bob. Towards
the end of the show, Bob was exhausted.
Since that post was made, one of them checked out Fivebodied, and I
don't think they were impressed.
purple
2008-04-11 02:22:03 UTC
Permalink
From:http://forum.resonancefm.com/viewtopic.php?p=13208
jtreg (Resonanceista - Posts: 593)
Location:http://www.tregaskis.org
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:18 pm
Towards the end of the show, Bob was exhausted.
Wrong.

Ben was the one who said I had more energy than him. Listen again.

And we talked for another hour on the way home.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-11 15:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
From:http://forum.resonancefm.com/viewtopic.php?p=13208
jtreg (Resonanceista - Posts: 593)
Location:http://www.tregaskis.org
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:18 pm
Towards the end of the show, Bob was exhausted.
Wrong.
Ben was the one who said I had more energy than him. Listen again.
And we talked for another hour on the way home.
You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
purple
2008-04-11 02:51:58 UTC
Permalink
a little obsessed with McLuhan and Joyce
The show was about Wyndham Lewis.


The GREAT Bob Dobbs
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-11 15:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by purple
a little obsessed with McLuhan and Joyce
The show was about Wyndham Lewis.
You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
C. Woolard
2008-04-11 04:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which he
has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissect Dean's blurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the interviewer
that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in how Dean does his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer asked Dean why he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
Lobster
Oh, look. We're picking on the kid who talks funny, again.
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-11 15:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. Woolard
Post by Johnny Lobster
He is not a stupid person. He is able to riff on themes about which
he has a supply of buzz words and phrases. It is unfortunate that the
"interviewer" did not have the ability to dissect Dean's blurch and
challenge him to define terms, justify his claims or clarify
contradictory statements.
Talk about wool pulling. Jibber jabber.
However, there were a few phrases and ideas uttered by the
interviewer that were worthwhile.
For those who are interested in how Dean does his work, it is
interesting listening from a sociological and psychological
standpoint.
I wonder if the interviewer asked Dean why he pretended to be the
inspiration for the COSG.
Lobster
Oh, look. We're picking on the kid who talks funny, again.
Do you mean the lying plagiarist who ran a radio show and put out an album
based on subgenius, with no permission and for spite?
C. Woolard
2008-04-12 02:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. Woolard
Oh, look. We're picking on the kid who talks funny, again.
  Do you mean the lying plagiarist who ran a radio show and put out an album
based on subgenius, with no permission and for spite?
You have forgotten that we already know you are a pathological liar.
Loading...