rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Obama enamored with Lincoln but he is WRONG - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0d2e561b1e21dd5b?hl=en
* GONE FISHIN' WITH THE FAB 5D2 ! - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7b5bd42536428df9?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 16 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
* End of an era - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d3123b0af4291a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama enamored with Lincoln but he is WRONG
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0d2e561b1e21dd5b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 12:08 am
From: Gaston Ryan Coake
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:13:49 -0600, HEMIROID - Powered wrote:
> You have NO IDEA how WELL I am informed.
If you are not addressing yourself, you should be.
You do not in fact know how well informed you are. You only know know
well informed you /think/ you are.
Need I say again that you only know about 1% of what you think you know?
Seems like it. Eventually, with repetition, you will at least remember it.
Your track record so far here is not all that impressive. Even those poor
sods who need to share your twisted viewpoints have probably noticed your
many factual errors, faulty logic and misquotes. They just don't
particularly care, because it serves their purposes.
I think most people here know how well informed you /really/ are, whether
they comment or not.
But things are progressing as they usually do. You're showing your
displeasure with people more openly. You're becoming more rude, and using
the Fuck Variants more often.
You're wound up much tighter, and you don't see it yet -- a telltale sign
to many of us. The seething, boiling cauldron just barely sub-surface is
showing.
And now you've upped the ante with your increasing use of lotsa CAPS.
We who know, know. We've seen your patterns before, ad nauseum.
And you've getting <plonked> by more and more. Lines are being drawn, and
that is always exceptionally good fuel for you.
Is the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms about to surface?
It matters not, there are Golems a'plenty out there, homunculi, simlacra,
gargoyles, cellular automata and tulpas galore to take of that
possibility.
Get back on your meds, Jer, or your gonna lose the best audience you've
ever had. Or likely ever will have.
You shouldn't crap in your new-found goldmine.
--
"I have heard that "Commentary" and "Dissent" had merged and formed "Dysentery."
-- A.R. duChat
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 12:19 am
From: Gaston Ryan Coake
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:
> Deep Reset added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>> No, as a British subject, he can DEMAND or COMMAND of me
>> precisely bugger-all.
>
> "Bugger-all"? Is that a sexual comment or a racist/bigoted comment
> - OR BOTH?
Nah, Americans aren't insular.
And so well informed that he has never heard that remark before.
>
>>> Mr. President but he cannot COMMAND anyone to respect him
>>> personally or his actions.
>
> You clearly need a remedial class in English comprehension, my Good
> Brit Friend.
No, Jer, you do.
American English is not as widespread as The Queen's English.
You need to understand all of the variants, most of which
predate current American English by centuries.
And since you got on the Victorian Era verbiage kick, perhaps I should
point out that you probably couldn't understand early American English
very well either.
Wake up and smell the feces, Jer.
You are sub-standard.
> Re-read what I said which is, one can demand respect
> based on their rank, title, or position but cannot command respect
> until/unless they have earned it.
Repeat it all you wnat, it's still not true.
> Cheers!
Forget them, they don't /want/ to know your name.
--
"I have heard that "Commentary" and "Dissent" had merged and formed "Dysentery."
-- A.R. duChat
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:38 am
From: Gaston Ryan Coake
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:04:44 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:
> Gaston Ryan Coake added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>> There are two kinds of respect:
>>
>> FALSE.
>>
>>> 1) that which can be DEMANDED by virtue of their rank or position
>>
>> That is not respect. That is the portrayal of respect, a protocol. If a
>> person is forced to act in a respectful manner, that does not mean that
>> there is any respect being offered.
>
> No, that IS a form of respect and it is respect only that our presidents
> call even their enemies by their titles, as in Mr. Chairman, Mr.
> President, Mr. Prime Minister, etc. To do otherwise is not only
> DISrespectful but a serious breach of protocol and etiquette. Best
> Google for the definitions of these big words, friend, you have it all
> wrong.
Sorry, kiddo, but you have it wrong.
I do like the 'a form of respect', though; nice weasel-wording, and it
does open new doors.
I admit I'm partly at fault here. I forgot that things have to be made
crystal clear with you, with no ambiguity. Not just because of your
limited capacities, but also for your small talent at gamesmanship.
Many words have multiple and dissimilar meanings, and each meaning is
appropriate only within the context of its usage.
In the original context, the primary definition was the appropriate one.
Your comment 'that IS a form of respect' in untrue. Is is a /different/
definition of respect entirely. Perhaps that escaped you, perhaps it
merely served your purpose, it matters not. The two have dissimilar
meanings and are /not/ interchangeable, which is what you are doing.
I only google for words for a quick check; I use many, many hardbound
dictionaries, one of which even resides on a library pedestal. And I
subscribe to some online ones, ones that have to be paid for, because they
/are/ library versions that most individuals can't afford to buy -- if
they'll even allow you to, since they are published for library, school,
newspaper and University use.
And there are the other, more specific dictionaries -- foreign-language,
etymological, reverse lookup, rhyming dictionaries, et al., but that's
beyond the point here.
Two minor points:
1) don't attempt to play any type of word games with me, because I'll bury
you alive. And don't for a nanosecond entertain the thought that you may
be better versed in English -- any or all forms -- than I am. You aren't,
not by a long shot. And your condescending tone there may just came back
and bite you -- hard.
So far, I have gone quite easy on you, and wanted to continue in that
mode; after all, you are just another generic asshole and I'm nice guy and
my tour of duty could end at a moment's notice. But if you really want it,
I can indeed turn up the volume. Considerably. And you don't want that.
You really don't.
2) Don't call me 'friend'. Not in sarcasm, not pejoratively, not in jest,
not in any way. It gives me a feeling of uncleanliness.
>>> and 2) that which can be COMMANDED by virtue of earning it.
>>
>> That is the only respect there is.
>>
>>> So, a president can DEMAND to be called Mr. President but he cannot
>>> COMMAND anyone to respect him personally or his actions.
>>
>> Do you realize how caught up you are in circular reasoning here? You
>> are basically contradicting yourself.
>>
> Not cicular at all. ALL who address a President of the United States
> MUST do one of the following: 1) Mr. President, 2) President Obama, or
> 3) Sir ... To do ANYTHING else is so horridly DISrespectful that NOBODY
> ever does it, not friends and certainly NOT enemies.
Wanna bet?
I've done it, with people you couldn't even get near.
It's my egalitarian nature.
I respect -- in definition #1 -- those who deserve it.
If they don't deserve it, they get none.
And if that goes counter to protocols or common behavior, so be it. That's
the problem for others, not me. I am not awed by anyone, Jer. Nobody,
that is, except those who have earned my respect (definition #1).
If I had had the dispeptic displeasure of ever having been formally
introduced to prez Bush, I would have quietly told him, publicly and in
front of cameras, just exactly what I thought of him, and I would have not
called him 'president'. Georgie Girl, perhaps, retard, perhaps, who knows?
And if it meant a vacation at Gitmo (which it wouldn't have; Georgie
never did have the cojones for that) well, so it would have been.
C'est ma vie.
> Again, Google is your best friend,
Google is nobody's friend.
> best brush up on what it means
I don't need any advice whatsoever from a subferior subordinate subhuman
nobody with an over-inflated sense of adequacy. That's you, Jer. that's
you.
And watch your tone. It could get you into big trouble, Brownie. Seriously
so.
> to
> respect someone based on a) their position, title, or rank and b) the
> extent to which they have earned it. You know, like Gen. Dwight D.
> Eisenhower, a rank.
Yada, yada, yada
Been there, heard that, rejected it.
In addition to the many things you need to learn, how to properly read and
learn from a dictionary is at the top of the list.
They provide a service that goes well beyond doing crossword puzzles and
as a 'debating' aid for the easily led.
You are DISMISSED.
--
"I have heard that "Commentary" and "Dissent" had merged and formed "Dysentery."
-- A.R. duChat
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:32 am
From: Chris H
In message <Xns9B9A11344C5DReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
<none@none.supernews> writes
>Gaston Ryan Coake added these comments in the current discussion
>du jour ...
>
>>> There are two kinds of respect:
>>
>> FALSE.
>>
>>> 1) that which can be DEMANDED by virtue of their rank or
>>> position
>>
>> That is not respect. That is the portrayal of respect, a
>> protocol. If a person is forced to act in a respectful manner,
>> that does not mean that there is any respect being offered.
>
>No, that IS a form of respect and it is respect only that our
>presidents call even their enemies by their titles, as in Mr.
>Chairman, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, etc. To do otherwise
>is not only DISrespectful but a serious breach of protocol and
>etiquette.
You have hit the nail on the head. " a serious breach or protocol and
etiquette" but nothing more.
>>> and 2) that which can be COMMANDED by virtue of earning it.
>> That is the only respect there is.
>>
>>> So, a president can DEMAND to be called
>>> Mr. President but he cannot COMMAND anyone to respect him
>>> personally or his actions.
>>
>> Do you realize how caught up you are in circular reasoning here?
>> You are basically contradicting yourself.
>>
>Not cicular at all. ALL who address a President of the United
>States MUST do one of the following:
Not "must" about it. It is protocol and etiquette. That is all.
> 1) Mr. President, 2) President
>Obama, or 3) Sir ... To do ANYTHING else is so horridly
>DISrespectful that NOBODY ever does it, not friends and certainly
>NOT enemies.
Actually LOTS of people to it on line and in other media as the have no
respect for him. Particularly the moron GWB. The only thing is face to
face most people observe etiquette and protocol. Not respect. Bush was
generally seen as a joke and a moron around most of the world. Obama has
more respect.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: GONE FISHIN' WITH THE FAB 5D2 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7b5bd42536428df9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:02 am
From: Noons
Jeff R. wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 5:37 PM:
>> ...But no, I would NEVER accuse you of being Douglas "St James"
>> Macdonald. Others might, but no, not me.
>
>
> I saw no obscenities.
> No extreme vulgarities.
> No spelling mistakes.
> No gratuitous use of the salutation "mate"...
>
> Either it isn't Doug, or the pills are working.
It doesn't matter, moron. When the chief imbecile
Mark says it is, you just follow sheepishly.
Capice?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:13 am
From: Noons
Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 6:53 PM:
> "Paul Parker", pretending he isn't Keoeeit, wrote:
>> Turn off auto-everything. Spot-meter one bird. Set manual
>> white-balance.
Apparently, a simple concept that anyone could grasp:
"turn off auto-everything".
OK, let's see what Wank-Mark-the-self-photo-expert makes of that:
> - you must NOT leave it on spot-metering unless you always have the bird
> in 'spot'
Amazing. After being told to turn off auto-everything, he concludes that
leaving the spot meter on will cause the camera to change its settings.
Unreal.
This so-called "expert" exceeds himself in stupidity with every single post.
> The proof, as you agree, is in the images - and I don't see *anything*
> from you. So that means...
Ah,OK: this means of course that seeing NOTHING from the self-appointed "expert"
we can safely conclude he is just another bumbling Usenet idiot masquerading as
an expert while using aggressive saturation posting techniques.
> G'nite Keoeeit. See how easy it is to be helpful without insults?
Then why don't you follow your own recipe?
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:34 am
From: "Focus"
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C59BC03D.1F520%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 1/20/09 5:02 PM, in article gl5kue$f0k$1@news.motzarella.org, "Noons"
> <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/01/2009 8:55 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As usual Noons is attacking without thinking. But I think "without
>>
>>
>> When will it down on you, you imbecile piece of shit, that
>> I don't use multiple personas on the Usenet. Focus is not me.
>
> How come we haven't seen both of you in the same room, Bruce/Batman?
>
> And that "alt.moron" thingy: You are the undisputed monarch there.
> Congratulations!
Read the headers. I'm from Portugal...
--
Focus
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:45 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
> "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
> news:z6ydnbWktI1URujUnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@novis.pt...
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213370
>>
>> Even with the flash on you can't see anything sharp except for the noise.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
>>
>> Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
>>
>> More noise with flash and no DOF.
> Not great shots true, but how come you can't read the exif?
> Doesn't "Flash Used - NO" actually mean without flash?
No, it means the camera didn't know about any flash being used. Many
cameras have at least one mode of use (such as Manual) in which a
flash trigger firing circuit is available if required, but the camera
doesn't know whether it was used.
Not to mention the possibility of the EXIF data being wrong.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:47 am
From: "Focus"
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c76241ec-b573-4e49-b1bb-248d351521b8@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 20, 9:05 pm, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> You are kidding, right?
>> Did you miss the whole episode about Bret's claims
>> that he uses flash but pbase misses its exif?
>I take it as a compliment when someone has to look at the EXIF data to
>see if a flash was used. A compliment to me and Gary Fong.
What part of:
"Mammamia! IS this all you can get out of the xpensive 5D2 ?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213370
Even with the flash on you can't see anything sharp except for the noise.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213128
Only one sharp eye, even with flash used. Do you know what DOF is?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213127
More noise with flash and no DOF.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/108213126
Except for a few hairs on the right, nothing is in focus here. With F/1.2 at
this distance, your DOF would be less then half an inch. What were you
thinking?
Have a look at this:
http://theaplus.jalbum.net/Probeersel/Beestjes/index.html
This woman just started taking pictures a few months ago. She only has a
Nikon D40, but heck: you can learn a lot from here: sharpness, DOF, etc.
It shows that you don't need and expensive camera to make good pictures..."
did you feel was a complement????
Somebody is in serious denial...
--
Focus
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:05 am
From: Chris H
In message <4976c293$0$1622$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>...
>>
>>>>The Nazis were not Christians.
>>>
>>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance
>>> with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard
>>> against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>>> Adolf Hitler
>>
>>Since YOU are a first class racist, bigot and anti-Semite, and one
>
>And there goes the rightard spewing the usual vitriol and hatred.
>
>> Adolph Hitler was
>>NOT a Christian.
>
>Hitler said otherwise, bigot.
Did he? Do you have a reference for that? A lot of his stuff was based
on Nordic legends and myths.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:03 am
From: Chris H
In message <18qcn4l7ocvo4n43monub6nb1b675ba5ob@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 20 Jan 2009 18:16:17 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>Such revisionist thinking, and even more so, the Liberal bias on
>>>our college campuses, perverts the very notions of freedom of
>>
>>Fascists hate liberalism.
>
>In your self-rightous bigotry you miss the truth that Facism *is*
>liberalism taken to its extreme. The Nazis were the National
>SOCIALISTS.
That is very child like simplistic thinking.
Some people would drink sulphuric acid if the label on the bottle said
water...
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:13 am
From: Chris H
In message <Xns9B999045095E5ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
<none@none.supernews> writes
>J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>> Neither does the Bible, which claims that Adam lived 930 years,
>> Seth 912, Enos 905, Cainan 910, Mahaleel 895, Jared 962, Enoch
>> died young at 365, then Methuselah live 969 years, Lamech 777,
>> and Noah was 500 or so when he started in on the Ark. It was at
>> that point that God, according to the Bible, decreed that the
>> days of men shall be 120 years.
>
>First, there was NO written language at the time that Genesis was
>"written".
Well that depends. Some cultures did have writing way back before the
time Christians say Genesis happened.
>The Bible and it's stories were handed down from person
>to person. Second, there are many versions of the stories each
>retold in different versions of the Bible.
Quite so and the final set that made it in to the bible were decided in
political meetings.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 1:25 am
From: Chris H
In message <Xns9B997DDB6422BReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
<none@none.supernews> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>I'm not interested in the crap you Socialists
>>
>> I am what you would call a republican
>
>There are NO Brits who are anything at all like our Rebublicans,
>NOT even your Tory/Conservative party. WE are fiscal conservatives
>and small government advocates. Your versions are nothing more than
>LESSER Socialists. There has been NO substantial move away from
>Socialism, social engineering, and the dope of "free" government
>services in the post-WWII years, just MORE under the Labour party.
You clearly have absolutely no idea of the UK or it's politics.
>
>>> teach but here in the
>>>Land of the Free,
>
>> I thought you were in the USA not the land of the free.
>
>Again, you have NO understanding of American politics and freedoms
>and apparently NOT any of your own. Cite for me WHAT document YOU
>have that is even a close cousin of OUR Constitution and Bill of
>Rights - if you can, which I already know you cannot.
Those two documents do not make you any freer that the UK . In fact
because yours are defined you are less free. In the UK the judges can
and often do over ride the government.
> I can
>demonstrate any number of freedoms, rights and protections
>GAURANTEED by our Constitution and enforced by our Federal courts
>all the way to the Supreme Court. YOU have NOTHING except vague
>references to English Common Law and statutory law in modern times
>which can be overruled by vote of Parliament.
Yes the People can modify the law. Just as in the US... you have
amendments to the constitution.
BTW where does it say that you can abduct people, torture them and hold
them without trial in contravention to all international law. That is
what has happened in the US
>OURS can only be
>modified by an Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by 3/4 of
>the several states.
Ours can only be passed by a vote of parliament representing ALL the
people. The Judges can also pull the government into the dock if they
misbehave. A couple of time the government has had things they were
doing stopped by the courts.
>>> what is BAD is when ANY group either secular OR
>>>religious attempts to use revisionist history in teaching our
>>>young or attempts to support only their own narrow view of the
>>>world instead of letting the students learn for themselves.
>>
>> I quite agree. So at what point would you introduce religious
>> education into school?
>
>I would NOT introduce religion into public schools.
It is a legitimate subject to teach BTW I mean religions not a specific
religion
> To do so would
>be a violation of the church and state clause of OUR First
>Amendment.
What is that?
> However, it IS permissible to speak of God in our
>schools IF, e.g., the Pledge of Allegiance, IF those who disagree
>are allowed to not speak "under God".
Sounds good
>To teach religion in schools
>REQUIRES that the school NOT be paid for by public moneies, e.g.,
>parochial schools sponsored and paid for by organized religions.
SO you would not teach religious studies as in comparative religious
studies. ? This is not the same as religious schools which I agree
should be self funded.
>Perhaps the BIGGEST, most egregious examples I can think of is the
>notion of dash-Americans, e.g., African-American, Japanese-
>American, Native-American, Iraqi-American, Eskimo-American, and all
>the other -Americans SAVE ONE: there seems NOT to be an accepted
>ethnic group called European-Americans.
Well the Europeans might object to that.
> Instead, we are still
>called Caucasions
Sounds OK to me.
>yet if we speak of Negro, Oriental, American
>Indian, Middle Easterner, Eskimos, etc. in order of my examples
>above, one is labeled a racist. Yet, these examples are ALL either
>continent-American or country-American and NOT true races or ethnic
>groups. I find it just as OFFENSIVE to be called a Caucasion as a
>black person claims to be offended to be called a Negro. Funny how
>the Science of Anthropology was poluted in this manner.
I agree.
>Now, IF YOU CAN, try citing ANY of your equivalent freedoms,
>rights, and protections from abuses by the Crown and YOUR political
>parties by inviolate document and NOT just by statutory law.
There is no inviolate document. We have a different system which works
far better (which is why your legal system is based on it)
BTW your inviolate document has amendments and additional stature laws.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:05 am
From: Gaston Ryan Coake
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:05:55 +0000, Chris H wrote:
> In message <4976c293$0$1622$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
> <rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>...
>>>
>>>>>The Nazis were not Christians.
>>>>
>>>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance
>>>> with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard
>>>> against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>>>> Adolf Hitler
>>>
>>>Since YOU are a first class racist, bigot and anti-Semite, and one
>>
>>And there goes the rightard spewing the usual vitriol and hatred.
>>
>>> Adolph Hitler was
>>>NOT a Christian.
>>
>>Hitler said otherwise, bigot.
> Did he? Do you have a reference for that?
Oh, he probably did say it, at some point, but what of it?
I mean, it's not like he had a great rep as a teller of trvth....
> A lot of his stuff was based
> on Nordic legends and myths.
And metric tonnes of pure mysticism, of many questionable flavours.
G
--
"I have heard that "Commentary" and "Dissent" had merged and formed "Dysentery."
-- A.R. duChat
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:26 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 05:03:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> HEMI - Powered <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>> Such revisionist thinking, and even more so, the Liberal bias on
>>>> our college campuses, perverts the very notions of freedom of
>>>
>>> Fascists hate liberalism.
>>
>>Name calling is a typical tactic of the intelletually bankrupt.
>
>Indeed HEMI is nothing if not intellectually bankrupt.
Indeed Ray is nothing if not a name-caller in the best
self-righteously bigoted tradition.
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:26 am
From: Chris H
In message <pan.2009.01.21.10.05.30.215309@numb_and_incoherent>, Gaston
Ryan Coake <Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> writes
>On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:05:55 +0000, Chris H wrote:
>
>> In message <4976c293$0$1622$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>> <rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>>The Nazis were not Christians.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance
>>>>> with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard
>>>>> against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>>>>> Adolf Hitler
>>>>
>>>>Since YOU are a first class racist, bigot and anti-Semite, and one
>>>
>>>And there goes the rightard spewing the usual vitriol and hatred.
>>>
>>>> Adolph Hitler was
>>>>NOT a Christian.
>>>
>>>Hitler said otherwise, bigot.
>> Did he? Do you have a reference for that?
>
>Oh, he probably did say it, at some point, but what of it?
Well some one above stated otherwise and it surprised me that Hitler
would have said it.
>I mean, it's not like he had a great rep as a teller of trvth....
Really? I did not think he was any more of a liar than any other
politician. What sort of lies were you thinking of?
>> A lot of his stuff was based
>> on Nordic legends and myths.
>
>And metric tonnes of pure mysticism, of many questionable flavours.
Absolutely... A real mash up of almost any mystical thing he could find.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:28 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:02:40 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
<Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:53:54 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>>>Fascists hate liberalism.
>>>
>>> In your self-rightous bigotry you miss the truth that Facism
>>> *is* liberalism taken to its extreme. The Nazis were the
>>> National SOCIALISTS.
>>>
>> Stephen, in the best tradition of "what goes around, comes around",
>> you are so right - if one goes far enough either left OR right, one
>> eventually gets to fascism. And, as you say so correctly, what
>> first appealed to Germans fed up with unemployment and runaway
>> inflation was the notion that the government would fix all ills for
>> them, the hallmark of Socialism. It was only a small step from
>> there to fascism where the state controls ALL thought and action.
>
>Interesting comment for someone with strong Fascist ideas. And with
>wet-dreams of being the next Führer of .. well .. anything. But so far you
>haven't even been able to attain the status of Führer of a Usenet
>newsgroup, though you have certainly tried.
>
>To paraphrase what so many said about the former prez and current
>groundhog trying to get outta town unnoticed and unlynched, 'You'd
>really like to be a Nazi, and you'd make a very good one, but
>unfortunately you're just not smart enough..'
Seriously, don't you have something better to do than to follow Hemi
around and take potshots at him, regardless of what he says?
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:33 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 05:04:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>
>>>>Such revisionist thinking, and even more so, the Liberal bias on
>>>>our college campuses, perverts the very notions of freedom of
>>>
>>>Fascists hate liberalism.
>>
>>In your self-rightous bigotry you miss the truth that Facism *is*
>>liberalism taken to its extreme.
>
>An outright lie, but just what I'd expect from a lying, bigoted
>asshole like you. I stated a fact. You don't like the fact because
>it shows that you are a fascist?
Oh, Ray, what other response could have been expected from you?
You're wrong, even in your arm-flailing fury.
>
>> The Nazis were the National
>>SOCIALISTS.
>
>National socialism is NOT THE SAME as socialism, you stupid asshole.
>Sheesh, take a introductory course in political science. Learn something.
I've taken several courses in political science and aced all of them,
thank you. In your typical self-righteous bigotedness, you changed
what I said and then used it as a platform for mindless name-calling.
I did not say that the two were the same thing. I said that facisim
is liberalism taken to its extreme. Perhaps you should take an
introductory course in the English language. Learn something.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:34 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:03:31 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <18qcn4l7ocvo4n43monub6nb1b675ba5ob@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>On 20 Jan 2009 18:16:17 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>>Such revisionist thinking, and even more so, the Liberal bias on
>>>>our college campuses, perverts the very notions of freedom of
>>>
>>>Fascists hate liberalism.
>>
>>In your self-rightous bigotry you miss the truth that Facism *is*
>>liberalism taken to its extreme. The Nazis were the National
>>SOCIALISTS.
>
>That is very child like simplistic thinking.
>
>Some people would drink sulphuric acid if the label on the bottle said
>water...
Struck a nerve there, eh?
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:47 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 05:19:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 20 Jan 2009 18:15:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:03:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 18 Jan 2009 22:59:42 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 18 Jan 2009 00:15:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:23:42 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In message <0em1n4tm1lc8s0cfvgslm44sr2q4v7h5mm@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What "atrocities", asshole?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Just count them, self-righteous bigot: blowing up busses filled with
>>>>>>>>>>>>innocent people;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As started by Israeli terrorists in 1947
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> blowing up restaurants filled with innocent people;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As started by Israeli terrorists in 1947
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>blowing up crowded intersections filled with innocent people;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As started by Israeli terrorists in 1947
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Check your history. Both sides are guilty, but the Arabs started it,
>>>>>>>>>>PRIOR to 1947.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Start what, asshole?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Check your history, self-righteous bigot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't even know, murderous bigot. You just spew lie after lie and
>>>>>>>expect people to accept your murderous hatred because of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, you just don't know history.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, you provide no facts to back up your claims.
>>>>
>>>>The facts are a matter of world history.
>>>
>>>Again, you provide no facts to back up your claims.
>>
>>World history, Ray.
>
>That's not a fact, idiot. That just a chickenshit evasion from a
>dishonest coward.
Except in the narrow worldview of a self-righteous bigot, name-calling
is not a substitute for learning world history before pretending to be
an expert.
>
>>>>>>>>>>Just as soon as Israel was formed in 1947, MULTIPLE Arab armies
>>>>>>>>>>launched a war to wipe them out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>AFTER Israel resorted to acts of terrorism in order to create the
>>>>>>>>>state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which was AFTER the Arabs had been terrorizing Jewish communities in
>>>>>>>>Palestine for years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which was AFTER Christians had been killing Jews by the millions for
>>>>>>>years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Whether or not that is true (and it isn't),
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop lying, bigot.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not, oh self-righteous one.
>>>>
>>>>You claimed that Christians had been killing Jews by the "millions."
>>>>You didn't back those numbers up.
>>>
>>>Start with the Holocaust, bigot.
>>
>>The Nazis were not Christians.
>
> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
> will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
> am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
> Adolf Hitler
Surely you don't think the rantings of a meglomaniac make him a
Christian, regardless of what he says?
>Christians have centuries of history pf persecuting Jews.
Unfortunately, this is true from a broad brush perspective. However,
it can be argued that those "Christians" who have done so were likely
ignorant of the fact that Jesus and all the Apostles were Jews, and
Christianity has strong Jewish roots.
Regardless of that side discussion, you are just using this as a
smokescreen to deny what the Muslims have been doing to them, and
ignoring the history of how the nation of Israel came into being.
>>>>>> it is irrelevent to what
>>>>>>the Arabs did to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you bigots NEVER see any problem with murdering OTHER people.
>>>>>You only object when people fight back.
>>>>
>>>>That's exactly why you are a self-righteous bigot.
>>>
>>>"I know you are but what am I?"
>>
>>So at least you admit that you are a self-righteous bigot.
>
>You're still a lying moron.
In typical self-righteous bigotedness, you throw out accusations with
no substance.
>>>Not only are you a murderous bigot, you're also a lying, childish,
>>>asshole.
>>
>>Oops. You slipped back into your childish,
>
>Grow up, asshole.
As self-righteous bigots often do, you use a shotgun approach in
spewing insults, hoping that one of them may stick and divert
attention from the fact that you really don't know what you're talking
about.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:48 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 06:37:07 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>...
>>
>>>>The Nazis were not Christians.
>>>
>>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance
>>> with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard
>>> against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>>> Adolf Hitler
>>
>>Since YOU are a first class racist, bigot and anti-Semite, and one
>
>And there goes the rightard spewing the usual vitriol and hatred.
>
>> Adolph Hitler was
>>NOT a Christian.
>
>Hitler said otherwise, bigot.
So now Ray actually believes the words of Hitler?
Seig Heil! Der Fuhrer speaks and Ray marches to his words!!
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 2:54 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 05:23:45 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 20 Jan 2009 18:17:19 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:04:24 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:13:42 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <6a26n45ob2mn69ubme264tsc5hmnejbfth@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:09:46 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <7lg4n496loqu193s5hlafel8a5gvm3aqad@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:23:42 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>showering civilian areas with a constant rain of explosive rockets
>>>>>>>>>>>>filled with ball-bearings...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As done by the IDF at an order of magnitude more then the Palestinian
>>>>>>>>>>>response
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So you're justifying Palestinian terrorism because they don't have as
>>>>>>>>>>much muscle as the Israeli military?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am justifying Palestinian self defence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You still haven't connected the dots between self defense and shooting
>>>>>>>>rockets into civilian neighborhoods or blowing up crowded busses with
>>>>>>>>suicide bombers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Be careful which side you defend because the Palestinians always
>>>>>>>>>>target civilians. The Israelis target Palestinian operatives,
>>>>>>>>>>leadership and facilities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is a complete lie as the first independent news team to get into
>>>>>>>>>Gaza has verified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You keep talking about indepenedent news teams without identifying
>>>>>>>>them and what they reported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry I forgot you only see Propaganda channels
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I look at all the news and make an informed judgement.
>>>>>
>>>>>No evidence of that. In fact, given the absurd claims you make it's
>>>>>pretty obvious that you do NOT look at all the news.
>>>>
>>>>Name one absurd claim I've made.
>>>
>>>Just below.
>>>
>>>>>>>The BBC. their coverage has been repeated on other stations too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, mate, the BBC is hardly what would be considered an independent
>>>>>>source.
>>>>>
>>>>>Q.E.D. You're a narrow-minded bigot who rejects any facts which
>>>>>don't conform to your agenda.
>>>>
>>>>Another characteristic of
>>>
>>>The BBC is highly regarded throughout the world for its fair and accurate
>>>news reporting, bigot.
>>
>>Not so,
>
>Liar.
>
>> The BBC even admits to its own liberal
>>bias.
>
>Where?
>
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.ece
>
>If you weren't an illiterate bigot you'd notice that that opinion
>doesn't even refer to BBC News services. It's an editorial piece
>by some clearly right-wing whiner.
Ray, you are really too funny.
Your last sentence above clearly shows your self-righteous bigotry.
Maybe you'll believe another reference:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html
And there are many more.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 3:08 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 05:34:19 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:17:56 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <078bn4550jhot5rfrj3h65l40e99a837ji@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:05:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's because Israel is NOT defending itself when it shoots rockets
>>>>>>>into crowded civilian neighborhods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And exactly why are they doing that, Ray?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because Likud believes in a Greater Israel and the Palestinians are in
>>>>>the way. Because Israelis consider Arabs to be subhumans in the same
>>>>>way that the nazis considered Jews to be subhumans and the S. Africans
>>>>>considered blacks to be subhumans.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You've just swallowed the propaganda.
>>>
>>>I have seen Israelis (In Hebron) say exactly that on camera.
>>>
>>>>Why would Israel want Gaza? It's always been a hell hole.
>>>
>>>Bull doze it and re-develop
>>
>>It may come to that if the Palestinians don't come to their senses and
>>recognize Israel's right to exist and truly seek peace.
>
>Ethnic cleansing, in other words.
Convenient that you can substitute words and pretend that those are
the original words that were spoken. A classic tactic of the
self-righteous bigot.
>
>>>>No doubt there are small groups of Jews who do believe that way, but
>>>>it is not Israeli policy.
>>>
>>>The evidence of reality says otherwise.
>>
>>You still haven't provided any,
>
>I provided part of the Likud party platform.
But you twisted what it said in your self-righteous bigoted
interpretation.
>
>>>>If you want to see how one group feels about the other's humanity,
>>>>just look at the Koran.
>>>
>>>It has many of the same books as the bible.
>>
>>Since when?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an#The_Torah_and_the_Bible
That article says nothing about the Koran having "many of the same
books of the Bible." It's common knowledge that the Koran re-tells
some of the stories from the Old Testament, but in no way, shape or
form are the same books in the Koran. The Koran merely puts a Muslim
twist on some of those stories.
BTW, pointing to Wikipedia as an authorative source is a very risky
thing if you're trying to impress people with your knowledge. But
then again, you actually believe that the BBC is neutral and unbiased.
>
>>>> It refers to the Jews as being "sons of apes
>>>>and pigs" and encourages Muslims to "kill them wherever you find
>>>>them."
>>>
>>>We won't go into the many similar things in the old testement....
>>
>>There is nothing whatsoever like that in the Bible.
>
>Nothing like that in the Koran either.
Self-rightous bigotry is not a cover-up for ignorance, Ray. Those
things are verbatum quotes from the Koran.
>
>>>> Before you excuse that as being a matter of interpretation,
>>>>just listen to Muslim rhetoric about those things and how many of
>>>>their clerics inflame the people about those subhuman Jews being in
>>>>their land.
>>>
>>>Well they are correct.
>>
>>At least you are admitting that you believe the Jews to be subhumans.
>
>Which he didn't, but you neonazi assholes LOVE to lie about people.
There is no lie, you even refer to the exact words. I said many of
their clerics inflame the people about the subhuman Jews being in
their land. He clearly said they are correct.
What part of "they are correct" don't you understand?
It never ceases to amaze me how self-rightous bigots can continue
their farce of childish name-calling and lies even while falsely
accusing others of the same. But that is the self-righteous bigot
manifesto.
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 3:09 am
From: Chris H
In message <17udn45d3mtcg1vtujss6ncv9i6nk1vrs2@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>
>>
>>> The Nazis were the National
>>>SOCIALISTS.
>>
>>National socialism is NOT THE SAME as socialism, you stupid asshole.
>>Sheesh, take a introductory course in political science. Learn something.
>
>I've taken several courses in political science and aced all of them,
>thank you.
Now we know you are lying.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 3:21 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 21 Jan 2009 05:36:56 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:05:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>>Because Likud believes in a Greater Israel and the Palestinians are in
>>>>>the way. Because Israelis consider Arabs to be subhumans in the same
>>>>>way that the nazis considered Jews to be subhumans and the S. Africans
>>>>>considered blacks to be subhumans.
>>>>
>>>>You've just swallowed the propaganda.
>>>
>>> The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the
>>> realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear
>>> expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the
>>> Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense
>>> of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will
>>> continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will
>>> prevent their uprooting.
>>> http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
>>
>>The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.
>
>That's a lie. It is NOT part of Israel. It is OCCUPIED territory.
>
>But at least you now are admitting to Israel's ethnic cleansing
Nope, those are your insane accusations, not my words.
>> It is
>>just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>
>Israel has never annexed the West Bank.
So, Ray, I suppose you would agree that California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Colorado, etc were OCCUPIED territories prior to statehood
since they were all taken from Mexico during a war; and were patrolled
by armed troops to protect settlers from attack by the indigenous
people?
Then it follows that if/when Israel does annex the West Bank then you
will consider it to be part of that country as well?
Why aren't you on the bandwagon of those demanding to return those
"stolen" lands back to Mexico and the indigenous people? Oh, maybe
you live in one of those states and you are the beneficiary of that
bit of "ethnic cleansing?"
>As usual your ignorance and stupidity are appalling.
As usual your self-righteous bigotry is demonstrated with every point
you try to make.
>
>>>>Why would Israel want Gaza?
>>>
>>>Ask them.
>>>
>>>>No doubt there are small groups of Jews who do believe that way, but
>>>>it is not Israeli policy.
>>>
>>>Check which is the ruling party, dumbshit bigot.
>>
>>That's not the point,
>
>Of course it's the point, you stupid asshole. It is the policy of the
>ruling Israeli political party.
And exactly what is that policy, free from your self-righteous bigoted
interpretation of it?
How is that any different from the policy of the U.S. in settling
territories that we won in various wars on this continent? If you
are appalled at what Israel is doing, then to be a consistent
self-rightious bigot you would need to move to another country in
protest.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: End of an era
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d3123b0af4291a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 21 2009 3:00 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Neil Harrington <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
> "Ockham's Razor" <Mencken@pdx.net> wrote in message
> news:Mencken-265738.10555620012009@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <kVodl.1578$ts4.160@newsfe06.iad>,
>> "Mr. Jon Pope" <mrjonpope@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Well they might be collectibles later on so keep them then sell on EVay
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> news:wp6dnUUT-eBKbujUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> > And now look. I am really kicking myself for not selling my 35s when I
>>> > still could have gotten some good money for them. The one bright spot
>>> > is
>>> > that thanks to Sony, some of my Minolta lenses are now worth more than
>>> > I
>>> > paid for 'em.
>> That's great. I have several old Minolta lenses from my SR-1. Maybe in
>> a few years.....
> Unfortunately, the old MC and MD mount lenses won't work on Sony DSLRs.
> Gotta be Maxxum/Dynax.
Depends what you mean by "work". Old lenses which never had autofocus
or any other auto features won't suddenly start having them on a
modern camera. But the lenses do what they always did to light passing
through them. I've got at least two old MC/MD Minolta lenses I'll
happily go on using on my Sony DSLR until I can afford to replace
them with an easier to use modern lens.
--
Chris Malcolm
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment