🚀 go-pugleaf

Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) wrote:

>>>*>LOL!<*  "Liberal dogma"?  Hey, buddy, don't look now
>>>but it's the so-called "conservatives" that are foisting
>>>a religious doctrine/dogma of destruction and apocalyptic
>>>nonsense, via the Leo Straussian background of the 
>>>neoconservative movement.  Don't even try and pretend 
>>>otherwise or I'll eat you alive for that faux pas alone..
> 
>   
> Skipped this part, eh?  I'm not surprised at all..
> 
> Neoconservatives aren't very 'accountable' for their sins..

I'm no strict adherent of Strauss, nor anyone else's single philosophy.

>>>>Blame it on having tight discriminator circuitry.
>>>
>>>*>spppfffghh!!<*  So, you'll use a 60Hz wide filter on a
>>>4.5MHz bandwidth QPSK signal to achieve 'quieting' but
>>>reject the signal entirely, from what I've seen so far..
>>
>>That or I've heard enough QSB to readily discount the 
>>topical bandits from the more credible QRP'rs.
> 
> 
> Henh!  I work in satellite uplink, too much power was
> an issue once upon a time, but not now.  I have ARRL
> handbooks back to the 40's though, some of Dr. Crosley's
> textbooks as well, from a booksale, so don't try to 
> sound like you're an 'elmer'..

I wouldn't presume to try and "elmer" a degreed physicist, nor should 
you assume that I'm devoid of any amateur background.

73.

> 
>>Could it be you're running more power than content?
> 
> 
> Likely not, I don't seem to be getting through to you as yet..

As I said...

>>>Too bad, you seem to be intelligent, with your interests in
>>>music being varied enough, but the effect is ruined once you
>>>start blathering off about paleontology and 'liberal dogma'..
>>
>>Rest assured there is a dogma to any politic, and academia is 
>>the agar for the bacterium of intellectual intolerance.
> 
> 
> You've again spoofed yourself into thinking that you know 
> something about "dogma", yet you've again deleted the point
> I made to you previously about the "neoconservative dogma"
> and could go into precise details regarding how such "doctrine"
> has harmed our international relations, but no..

I'm less concerned with kow-towing to the euro-globalists than you seem 
to be...

> You deleted it..  I guess you're not capable of a rational
> discussion after all that noise about music, much less how
> your beliefs have been molded by the neoconservative movement
> to fit their agenda, not your salvation..

My beliefs will remain, hopefully, a work in progress. That doesn't mean 
that I'm willing to roll over to the nanny state as a climax system - 
far from it in fact.


>>>--And that's why you keep trying to avoid the subject header..
>>
>>I've said my piece, if proven wrong I have only the blackness 
>>of your Creator-less power down to cool off in.
> 
> 
> "creator-less power down"?  WTF are you off on tonight?

Well how else do the finals cool when the switch goes off?

> You have made a faulty presumption as to my personal
> beliefs, which I find to be quite dishonest of you, 
> yet again.  

And you have made and equal or even greater number of inchoate 
conclusions regarding my beliefs - touche.

> So let me correct your faulty dogmatic beliefs
> one more time.  You have precisely no means at your power 
> to determine how I, or anyone else, for that matter, believes,
> be it in a deity of one, many or whatever attributes you may 
> imagine.  That's what I find so laughable about so-called
> "christian conservatives", is that you predefine "God" to
> suit your prejudices and petty behavioral dysfunctions..

Most humans have some personally scripted vision of the divine, that's a 
less than convictable sin.

> For example, your fallacy argument about whether or not
> I believe in a god, yours or anyone else's, is justified by
> your 'black-or-white' pseudo-reasonings..  Example follows..

And your fallacious presumptions of my faith in an Apocalypse are merely 
bad guesses.

>>Should I be right however, you face, at best, a stunningly 
>>unexpected peer review...to begin with...
> 
> 
> *>LOL!<*  Which neglects to mention that a "living" god,
> manifesting itself in the physical universe would likely
> judge and deliver guidance, if one were receptive, which
> of course, you aren't..  

I left the door open as to our ownership of the divine, versus its 
monolithic control of our destiny. I rather thought that to be a kindly 
scenario to present a literalist like you, though you seem not to be 
predisposed to small mercies...

> You've let the cat out of the bag,
> Spamantha..  You're one of those so-called "christian 
> conservatives" that's bought into the "apocalyptic" scenario,
> and here you are pronouncing 'judgements' upon others for
> not believing as you do.. 

Again you cast a groundless accusation...

> That's really fucked up, and God will be really pissed at
> you until you figure out how you've been lied to, told lies
> and tried to force your pathetically narrow-minded views
> upon those of us who are unwilling to share your demise..

I see, now you presume to speak for God? Or do you merely insert what 
you feel will be the expected cautionary rhetoric with some hope of 
chastening me in the idiom you presume me to be most steeped in?

> Yeah, just drink the kool-aide, pretend you're all high 
> and mighty, neglect any 'stewardship' of the Earth, let the
> robber-barons have their way with your poor pitiable self,
> it's all a part of God's plan for you and yours..
> 
> --See you later, 'wake up' or bye-bye..

See you soon at the fuel lines, either pony up, or pay up.