PDA

View Full Version : fried bacon troubles.


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23

Rod Speed
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in
message news:tf5p319sh87f9ppo1ahtip00tkj4e2jvq4@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> :> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote
> :>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> :>> :> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote
> :>> :>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> :>> :>> :> aem <aem_again@yahoo.com> wrote
> :>> :>> :>> Rod Speed wrote

> :>> :>> :>>> Most of them still consider that its fine to stone people to
> death
> :>> :>> :>>> for adultery, and crap on about the standard of proof required.

> :>> :>> :>> Well, that's nonsense. It's true that Leviticus, in addition
> :>> :>> :>> to the dietary restrictions, prescribes death by stoning for
> :>> :>> :>> a variety of offenses. But it's obviously untrue that most
> :>> :>> :>> contemporary observers of kosher laws advocate stoning.

> :>> :>> :>You'll find that the rabid who maintain that the kosher laws
> :>> :>> :>should be strictly observed today also maintain that all of
> :>> :>> :>Leviticus is still applicable today, and when you pin them to
> :>> :>> :>the wall on stuff like stoning adulterers to death, weasel
> :>> :>> :>desperately on the standard of proof required.

> :>> :>> False.

> :>> :>Nope.

> :>> Try meeting some religious Jews.

> :>Been there, done that.

> Bullsh*t.

After the spectacular fool you just made of yourself on my name,
you'll have to pardon us if we decide that you wouldnt recognise
a pile of bullshit even if you ended up face down in it.

> :>> Though I would suggest removing the swastika and hood-and-sheet first.
> :>> You will find that they are a turn off to those not in your KKKlan.
>
> :>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>
> :>> :>> The standard for proof has always been great.
>
> :>> :>Never said it wasnt. Thats just what they weasel on when you pin
> :>> :>them to the wall on continuing to adhere to Leviticus in modern times.
>
> :>> What is this "weaseling" that you refer to?
>
> :>Their claim on why they dont actually stone anyone to death anymore.

> How was stoning done?

Irrelevant to the fact that they dont do it anymore.

> Give details.

Go and fuck yourself.

> Demonstrate your <sarcasm> knowledge </sarcasm> of Judaism.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort, child.

> :>> To repeat: The standard for proof has always been great.
>
> :>To repeat: Never said it wasnt.
>
> :>> :>> There is a Talmudic statement that a court that executes more
> :>> :>> than one person in seventy years was considered a "hanging court".
>
> :>> :> Doesnt mean that there was never capital punishment used.
>
> :>> Nobody is disputing that.
>
> :>It isnt however done anymore, even in Isreal where
> :>they could if they chose to with 'crimes' like adultery.

> How could they?

Maybe you actually are that stupid.

> Detail the procedures.


Go and fuck yourself.

> Demonstrate your <sarcasm> knowledge </sarcasm> of Judaism.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort, child.

> :>> Your argument is that the lack of executions
> :>> means that the law is no longer applicable.
>
> :>Wrong. I JUST said that they weasel when you rub their noses
> :>in the FACT that they no longer stone anyone to death. In spite
> :>of their claim that everything in Leviticus still applys today.

> How could they?

Maybe you actually are that stupid.

> Detail the procedures.


Go and fuck yourself.

> Demonstrate your <sarcasm> knowledge </sarcasm> of Judaism.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort, child.


> :>> I have absolutely refuted your KKKlan based claim.
>
> :>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>
> :>> :>> Several great sages of 2k+ years ago stated that there would
> :>> :>> never be capital conviction in one of their courts because they
> :>> :>> could always show that some element of proof was missing.
>
> :>> :> And quite a few ended up dead anyway.
>
> :>> Define "quite a few".
>
> :>Go and chase the numbers up for yourself, child.

> KKKlan typical dodge noted.

Your rabid drug crazed fantasy noted.

> They tend to make statements, then
> weasel when pressed for details or facts.

And fools like you couldnt even bullshit your way out of a wet paper
bag even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, child.

> :>> Provide sources to support it.
>
> :>Go and fuck yourself.

> KKKlan typical dodge noted.

Your rabid drug crazed fantasy noted.

> They tend to make statements, then
> weasel when pressed for details or facts.

And fools like you couldnt even bullshit your way out of a wet paper
bag even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, child.

> :>> Be aware that neo-nazi site proofs are rarely useful.
>
> :>Duh.
>
> :>> :>> The Jewish court had the obligation to attempt
> :>> :>> to get the defendant off in a capital case.
>
> :>> :>And quite a few ended up dead anyway.
>
> :>> Define "quite a few".
>
> :>Go and chase the numbers up for yourself, child.
>
> KKKlan typical dodge noted.

Your rabid drug crazed fantasy noted.

> They tend to make statements, then
> weasel when pressed for details or facts.

And fools like you couldnt even bullshit your way out of a wet paper
bag even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, child.

> :>> Provide sources to support it.
>
> :>Go and fuck yourself.
>
> :>> Be aware that neo-nazi site proofs are rarely useful.
>
> :>Duh.
>
> :>> :>> :> Find a rabbi who believes in strict adherence to kosher laws,
> :>> :>> :> and get him to explain why the other stuff in Leviticus no longer
> :>> :>> :> applys, and the desperate attempt to bullshit his way out of
> :>> :>> :> his predicament on that will stand out like dogs balls.
>
> :>> :>> No such thing.
>
> :>> :>> They are all applicable.
>
> :>> :> Thanks for agreeing with what I originally said.
>
> :>> :> Like I said, the most rabid maintain that everything
> :>> :> in Leviticus still applys today, even stoning to death.
>
> :>> All religious Jews.
>
> :>Wrong.

> Yet another case where you will weasel out of providing proof?

YOU made that claim

YOU get to do the proving.

THATS how it works, child.

> I was considering snipping the rest, but thought
> your childish statements were just too funny.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort, child.

> At any rate, unless you <sarcasm> demonstrate your knowledge </sarcasm>
> of history or Judaism by posting some facts, you get the last word.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort, child.

> Cowards like you are just so pathetic that you are funny.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort, child.

> :>> Of course, to scum like you any and all excuse is valid to murder Jews.
>
> :>Havent actually murdered a single one, or even
> :>advocated that either, you silly little arsehole.
>
> :>> :>> And, unlike you, I post under my own name
>
> :>> :> I do too. You can wipe that egg off your face now.
>
> :>> Bullsh*t.
>
> :>Have you the remotest concept of you pathetic you look
> :>in the eyes of those who know that it is my own name ?
>
> :>Obviously not.
>
> :>Even someone as stupid as you should be able to prove
> :>that it is, using the net. If someone was actually stupid
> :>enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
>
> :>I dont even bother with unlisted phone numbers, cretin.
>
> :>> :>> and publicly provide my address and phone number.
>
> :>> :> Mine is available to anyone with a clue too.
>
> :>> Not publicly provided.
>
> :>Lie.
>
> :>> Why not try getting out from under the
> :>> hood and publicly provide the information?
>
> :>Why dont you go and fuck yourself, child ?
>
> :>> Afraid that someone might want to meet you, coward?
>
> :>Nope, if I was, I wouldnt be publicly listed, fuckwit.
>
> :>> :>> What is your excuse for not doing the same?
>
> :>> :> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>
> :>> Why not try getting out from under the
> :>> hood and publicly provide the information?
>
> :>Why dont you go and fuck yourself, child ?
>
> :>> Afraid that someone might want to meet you, coward?
>
> :>Nope, if I was, I wouldnt be publicly listed, fuckwit.
>
> :>> :>> You can now return to reading your favorite white power site.
>
> :>> :> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>
> :>> Why not try getting out from under the
> :>> hood and publicly provide the information?
>
> :>Why dont you go and fuck yourself, child ?
>
> :>> Afraid that someone might want to meet you, coward?
>
> :>Nope, if I was, I wouldnt be publicly listed, fuckwit.

Rod Speed
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
Your quoting is a complete mess, I have fixed it manually.

Old Magic1 <old_magic1@grandecom.net> wrote in
message news:113p5rqejoda236@corp.supernews.com...
> altheim <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote
>> Old Magic1 <old_magic1@grandecom.net> wrote

>>> If a person chooses to believe in and practice their religion,
>>> which is not to the liking of another, the other person should
>>> just choose to leave that religion alone and seek out one they
>>> do believe in or simply choose to become a non-believer. The
>>> Jews, Cristians, Islam, Buddist or any religion should be allowed
>>> to choose whatever they want to believe in and practice their
>>> religion as they see fit, as long as they don't try to force their
>>> beliefs on someone else are harm someone in the process. As
>>> the great philosopher, George Jones (The Opossum), said "We live
>>> and die by the CHOICES we make". We all here have Freedom of
>>> Choice, choose well and let others have that same Freedom also.

>> That is a very nice platitude but it is not very well thought out.

> I believe it is very well thought out.

More fool you.

>> All these religions have their good and bad points and
>> the moderate believers will pick and choose the socially
>> good points and ignore the bad or constitutionally illegal ones.

> That is their right to pick and choose. If it is
> constitutionally illegal the courts can get involved.

Wrong. If they claim that their 'religion' requires them to
stone people to death, it is perfectly legal to frog march
them in front of a court if they are stupid enough to try it.

>> Fundamentalists argue that such selective
>> belief is hypocritical - and they have a point!

> That to is their right in a free nation.

Nope, not when they want to do stuff like stone people to death.

>> So to say that a religion is ok so long as it conforms to some
>> rule of *your* choosing is just stupidly and complacently lame.

> You might want to go back and read what I said again.

No point, it was always poorly thought out rubbish.

> It is your right to believe whatever way you choose
> to believe as long as you don't try to force your beliefs
> on someone else are harm someone in the process.

Superficial waffle when any religion always does some harm,
even if its just brainwashing the stupid on a particular issue.

>>> If a person chooses to believe in and practice their religion,
>>> which is not to the liking of another, the other person should
>>> just choose to leave that religion alone and seek out one they
>>> do believe in or simply choose to become a non-believer.

Still poorly thought out superficial waffle.

>> There are more fundamental Moslems living in the west than
>> there are Fundamental Christians and they are dangerous,
>> as they have already shown - and continue to show.

> There are fanatics in nearly every religion not just the Moslem religion,

The difference is that with most religions the worst of the
fantatics dont attempt to ram their views down other's throats.

> especially the idiotic so called "White Power Fundamental
> Christians" of all sorts, they are dangerous, as they have
> already shown - and continue to show.

Not as dangerous as the worst of the moslem rabid fundamentalists
who choose to kill themselves in the process of killing others.

> Now getting back to COOKING.

No thanks.

Peter Aitken
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a3me1F67st0dU1@individual.net...
>
> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in
> message news:tf5p319sh87f9ppo1ahtip00tkj4e2jvq4@4ax.com...


<enormous amounts of drool and slobber trimmed>

Can you mental midgets (yes, all of you) please take your "discussion" to a
relevant newsgroup? Ask mommy to show you how.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Arri London
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
Neil wrote:
>
> Cow DO have cloven hooves, and they ARE kosher.
> Hogs also have cloven hooves, but they don't chew the cud, so they
> aren't kosher.

LOL yes. The person who said cows weren't kosher was well off the mark.

Robert Morien
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
In article <q17p31lr2s5aubikqlkkh8o9sn4j89vbo5@4ax.com>,
Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 19 Mar 2005 12:44:12 -0800, "Neil" <WardNA@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Cow DO have cloven hooves, and they ARE kosher.
> >Hogs also have cloven hooves, but they don't chew the cud, so they
> >aren't kosher.
>
>
> This is all true ........ but the camel ...unKosher ........ does it
> have NO hoof or a non-cloven hoof?
>
> Or toes?
>
>
> Camels chew their cuds.
>
>
> Joely

But not all parts of the cow are kosher

Joel M. Eichen
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:52:21 -0800, Robert Morien
<PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote:

>In article <q17p31lr2s5aubikqlkkh8o9sn4j89vbo5@4ax.com>,
> Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19 Mar 2005 12:44:12 -0800, "Neil" <WardNA@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Cow DO have cloven hooves, and they ARE kosher.
>> >Hogs also have cloven hooves, but they don't chew the cud, so they
>> >aren't kosher.
>>
>>
>> This is all true ........ but the camel ...unKosher ........ does it
>> have NO hoof or a non-cloven hoof?
>>
>> Or toes?
>>
>>
>> Camels chew their cuds.
>>
>>
>> Joely
>
>But not all parts of the cow are kosher

True, gets complicated!

And a Kosher cow can get unKosher mighty fast.

Joel M. Eichen
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:36:50 -0700, Arri London <biotech@ic.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
>
>Neil wrote:
>>
>> Cow DO have cloven hooves, and they ARE kosher.
>> Hogs also have cloven hooves, but they don't chew the cud, so they
>> aren't kosher.
>
>LOL yes. The person who said cows weren't kosher was well off the mark.


TRICKY

Some cows are Kosher, other cows are non-Kosher, still other cows
become unKosher!

Now all's we got to worry about it Glatt Kosher.

I think Halel is less complicated.

Gary
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
"Joel M. Eichen" wrote:
>
> On 19 Mar 2005 12:44:12 -0800, "Neil" <WardNA@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Cow DO have cloven hooves, and they ARE kosher.
> >Hogs also have cloven hooves, but they don't chew the cud, so they
> >aren't kosher.
>
> This is all true ........ but the camel ...unKosher ........ does it
> have NO hoof or a non-cloven hoof?
>
> Or toes?
>
> Camels chew their cuds.
>
> Joely

I love eating camel toes no matter what time of the month.