🚀 go-pugleaf

Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) wrote:
> "spamantha" wrote:
> 
>>Kurt Lochner still thinks your reformatting suck rock:
> 
> ____> 
> 
>>>>>*>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.
> 
> 
> It doesn't show, for some reason..

I can but state my case.

>>>>>>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[..]
> 
> 
> Thank you, it'd be just another distraction for you..

I'm sure, though you might come in handy making a full wave 160 meter 
rhombic in the pines some day...


>>>>>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[..]
> 
> 
> My bullshit detector just went off, was that you regurgitating
> some right-wing rhetoric again?

You don't perceive several camps of globalists?

>>>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. 
> 
> 
> Better brush the cob-webs off it soon..

Do tell, expecting a grand alignment or some such event yourself then?

>>That doesn't mean that I'm willing to roll over to the nanny state [..]
> 
> 
> There goes that bullshit detector again..  Were you again regurgitating
> some more of that right-wing vitriol I've been seeing you spew out
> in other threads today?  Isn't that a finite resource you're expending
> to say so little?  And besides, a 'socialist' nanny-state doesn't
> exist and wouldn't be efficient enough to be much of a bother, in
> comparison to a fascist police state, always in perpetual state of
> unrest and fear..  Oh wait, that's what W. Bush has been putting
> together
> piece by piece of thoughtless greed and imperialistic efforts abroad..

Quite the emission that was, feel better now?

The reason the nanny state doesn't exist is because there's an ardent 
disconnect from the American psyche for such, and one that despite the 
LBJs of our time I suspect will remain active for a while yet.

> Silly Texans, they think they're a world unto themselves, just ask 'em..

I'd have asked Johnson for sure!

And really, having driven across that state a few times, it readily 
lends itself to such thinking - the damned thing is massive.


>>>>>--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?
> 
> 
> Oh, stand-by mode to power down..  That's something my klystrons
> would last long without, but the metaphor isn't quite true..

Well, It was the best I could do, don;t have all that much time for 
radio anymore, and the cycle has been noisy at best. You working the 
centimeter and up bands then?

>>>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.
> 
> 
> Well, I'm still peeved that I couldn't get the Koln Concert set 
> today, the store 'droid said it was out of print, yet I saw it
> just two weeks ago there, along with all the rest of 'em..
> 
> Even the Denis Leary DVD was gone, again the droid saying that
> they'd never carried it, the rest of the 'specials' were at least
> $10-15 higher than anywhere else as well..   <grrrrrrr...>

I referenced amazon's page in the preceding post - they have some nice 
samples up.

>>>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.
> 
> 
> But, it's also susceptible to preconceived ideologies, and without
> a doubt one of the more devious games on the table..

Granting you that, so where then to draw the line between a given faith 
and the perversion thereof...

>>>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.
> 
> 
> Not at all, those conclusions were drawn from your own expressions
> that sounded very much like those you now claim to not share ideas
> with.  Similarly, the Straussian 'neoconservatives, you spout the
> same, almost identical, dogmatic diatribes, diligently delaying 
> discourses until diverse displays of disgust deviate your didactic
> dialogues and digest into discordant digressions of displeasing 
> dualistic divergences and dogmatic doggerel..
> 
> "Words with a D this time.."

Vanna would be bankrupt!

I'm pleased that some of my needs are met by the latest iteration of 
Republicans, far more than the last round in fact, but I'm as yet wholly 
unfulfilled, despite your Strausian 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 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but my bullshit detector just went off again..

Oh, you're not a literalist?

>>>*>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..  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...
> 
> 
> You're the one that's evincing the expressions of such, not I..

Not of the apocalypse at least, despite your seeming need to have me do so.

>>>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? 
> 
> 
> In a Monty Pythonesque sort of way, had you not the humor?

Thank you Brian...

>>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?
> 
>  
> The idioms that you appear to be 'steeped in' are self-evident,
> as evidenced by the right-rhetoric you've posted all over..

Well some may be, but you've fallen way off mark on quite a few thus far.

>>>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[..]
> 
> 
> Doubtful that, I don't own a huge SUV with a W. Bush sticker 
> leftover from last year on the back window..  

Beats the Kerry variant...

> That's for the
> creatures that cannot, and likely will not wake up from their
> role-playing of 'games' of imagined prosperity and avarice..

Substitute prosperity of the soul here?

> --Debt bombs to follow..

Perhaps, that sounds rather apocalyptic to me...