|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a typo in your summary. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Feel free to mod this down so no one else has to look at it once the article is fixed. Thanx!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:50 AM April 6th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Atleast she isn't a feminist (notice she didn't send the childeren to state re-education camps)... just needs an exorcist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:33 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
True.
But Charles Manson was/is deeply insane, too but HE'S still in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blah blah blah...
Yes, she is insane. How society wishes to address that is a different discussion that nobody on this website has had the desire to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:51 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Blah blah blah...
Typical gender feminist, you come on this web site with your patronizing misandry as if your view were the only viable perspective. Perhaps if your tone were different people would be more willing to discuss with you, but then femi-supremacists must have their superiority, eh? Perhaps you are just intolerant of any viewpoint that runs counter to your own?
How society wishes to address that is a different discussion that nobody on this website has had the desire to discuss.
We are discussing this, and we are saying that society treats females more leniently. Apparently. that's just not something you want, or choose, to hear. Just stayed tuned this murderess will be out of her asylum much, much sooner than a man who might have done a similar crime. In fact, a man would have probably gotten the death penalty under similar circumstances. One of the commentators on Fox News even stated, "Now that she's on ‘anti-psychotics,’ and allegedly responding, what's to keep her locked away?" That's just how our "chivalrous legal system" works.
Routinely, there are disparities in sentencing, where (for similar crimes) women get more lenient sentences than men. For similar circumstances women tend to get social services, but men tend to get prison or the grave. I believe this story is just one more indication of that wide spread societal prejudice against men.
Ray
(click) Judicial Chivalry
(click) Stop Battering Little Boys and Men
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical gender feminist, you come on this web site with your patronizing misandry as if your view were the only viable perspective.
It obviously is not. You can post at the same frequency that I can. I'm sorry that my points are so overwhelming that you feel under represented. But trust me when I say that you are not.
We are discussing this, and we are saying that society treats females more leniently.
No, you dipthongs are discussing how a woman is not crazy because she is a woman. That is fucking insane. You are not discussing the judicial process or wether or not insane people should be shot (which would be an arguable point). Instead, because I do not think that the lady is insane, I am a feminist soccer mom? No. I am not, but no amount of type will convince you of that because the concept of a man disagreeing with you is sooo far fetched. BULLSHIT.
Routinely, there are disparities in sentencing, where (for similar crimes) women get more lenient sentences than men. For similar circumstances women tend to get social services, but men tend to get prison or the grave. I believe this story is just one more indication of that wide spread societal prejudice against men.
I AGREE. There are disparities in sentencing. But a woman being declared insane IS NOT an indication of her sentencing, no matter how much paint thinner you inahle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dipthong? What is that?
Since when is "Blah blah blah" not patronizing? Do you know what patronizing means?
We were not discussing how a woman is not crazy because she is a woman. I suggest you reread the posts again.
"It's hard to be sure, since I didn't hear all the testimony, but after reading a bit about this case, it seemed to me that she really might have been deeply insane."~Thomas
Seems to me someone has just stated they feel she was crazy. I think perhaps you should be more careful HOW you read, you seem to be having difficulty with reading comprehension.
"No, you dipthongs are discussing how a woman is not crazy because she is a woman.... Instead, because I do not think that the lady is insane, I am a feminist soccer mom?"
Why are we dipthongs (?) for thinking she is not crazy (which we never said) but you are not for thinking she is not crazy? Do you realize how you just contradicted yourself, and called yourself a dipthong?
I think maybe you have been 'inahling'('inhaling' after a spell check) something, because your posts really make no sense.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:46 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
That is fucking insane.
And what are you a model of normal? It appears to me you have a very serious, out of control, rage issue. Are you routinely this abusive to others in your life, when they disagree with your outlooks? Read about yourself here, Female Emotional Terrorist
You completely destroy the integrity of any points you are trying to make by exhibiting such violent behavior. You really do need to seek and get counseling, and not from one of those domestic violence industry parrots who thinks that women are not violent, but from someone who recognizes that women are truly violent and abusive in very significant numbers.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:58 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to have you and Jen along for this ride, Ray.
I tried talking reasonably, almost all night with this joker.
(But I wasn't late for work this morning.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you routinely this abusive to others in your life
Only on message boards Ray.
You completely destroy the integrity of any points you are trying to make by exhibiting such violent behavior
It only destroys my integrity because it allows you the opening to discuss my behavior rather than the issue. Not that I haven't been tangential, but do we really want to make this message board about ME?
You people don't like me so why discuss me any further? My "violent attacks" are more an act of boredom. Many of them have made references to physical superiority merely because I find it ironic that MEN are using feministic tactics to make their points. This includes painting yourselves as victims and playing the "violence is for morons" card.
Funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:14 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
TC:
I thought about you at some point in all this exchange. Great to hear from you. It's been really interesting. I guess when radical feminists say "level playing field," that's just a code word for taking and holding the "high ground." I guess men have just run out of ground to yield.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court TV devoted a few hours to coverage of the trial and included parts of the mother's videotaped interrogations by the police.
Let's just say that I was finally convinced that this woman was a bit spacey indeed.
It should be noted that even the defense repeatedly referred to the mother's actions as being "violence".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was revealed that "hearing voices" was one of the criteria she met for insanity.
Oh yeah, hearing voices and having severe psychotic delusions.
"All five mental-health experts consulted in the case, including two for the prosecution and one for the judge, concluded a severe mental illness caused Laney to have psychotic delusions that rendered her incapable of knowing right from wrong during the killings - the standard in Texas for insanity." http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/04/03/40767 7-ap.html
Isn't it an ironic coincidence that women's voices, pleading for lenient sentencing, are more frequently "heard" by our courts than male voices pleading for justice.
I didn't know John Hinkley was a woman. Hm, I guess I learn something new everyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I posted the same submission article, but Ray beat me to it!
Thanks alot Ray! (kidding)
Siriously, though in my post I said we should change the "Guilty by reason of insanity" for women to what it really is; 'Not guilty by reason of being female.'
Anyone remember the Los Angeles riots? (rehtorical question) Well, I wonder how many women who are obviously guilty of hienous crimes will be found not guilty 'by rerason of being female' before MEN riot.
Something to think about.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So their vagina dictates innocence? I don't even know what the hell point your trying to make. And what the hell do the Los Angeles riots have to do with this? You may well have said the Watt's Riots or The Battle of Little Big Horn for all of the relevance that your response had.
That had to be the most tangential response I have ever read on a message board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:46 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Battle of little big horn"
Uhh, don't go THERE with me, joker.
And as far as the Los Angeles riots are conserned I make the comparison to the injustice that many Black Americans felt when the cops were found "not guilty" of beating Rodney King to the simmering feelings of injustice felt by many men as we see women getting off or getting slaps on the wrists for committing heinous crimes that men would have been given MUCH harsher penalties for.
And, sure go ahead and make fun of my writeing, spelling and sentance struturing.
As you may know I am American Indian and haven't always spoken English. Actually I do fairly well, considering.
I'd like to see YOU write even one paragraph or speak one sentance of Cherokee, and not make mistakes.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for hitting a nerve about the Big Horn thing.
I can't tell ethnicity via Time New Roman or Helvetica. I know, I know... the signature is a bit obvious in hindsight but hey, its the internet. It could have been a porn reference for all I know. I definitely do not have anything against Native Americans and greatly respect your heritage and I do apologize.
But my next post will be viscious (if I disagree with you).
Make fun of spelling? Don't worry I'm not 15 years old. I'd much rather win a discussion based on the topic rather than grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:41 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, glad to hear it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
My next repsonse to one of your posts was pretty vicious. I just want to reiterate that I am extremely sensitive to your ethinicity and heritage. Much respect. But I can't pull too many punches or else I'm slapping like a Sally girl.
G'day
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:04 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
But my next post will be viscious (if I disagree with you)
Did you mean vicious or viscous?
Make fun of spelling? Don't worry I'm not 15 years old. I'd much rather win a discussion based on the topic rather than grammar.
So far you're losing on both counts.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I kicked the crap out of your entire community on the topic.
And as far as grammar goes, you missed the point on my message.
Attack my point and not my grammar you wife beating English teacher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was wondering too if he was going to snot us to death!
Oh, and so far all your posts have done is left us shaking our heads in confusion at what you are attempting to say. You have yet to out-debat anyone here. Perhaps if you stop swearing, mocking and switching topics you may have a better chance.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:33 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I kicked the crap out of your entire community on the topic. And as far as grammar goes, you missed the point on my message. Attack my point and not my grammar you wife beating English teacher.
Xamot, I am impressed by your emotional outbursts and think that if I were physically in your presence you would have already battered me, self-inflicted a small physical injury to yourself, then called 911. Isn't that how domestic violence advocates/counsellors in that industry are trained to coach women into false reports of domestic violence?
You can read about yourself here, Female Emotional Terrorists
You really should seek and get some help with your abusiveness, and not from those gender feminist parrots in the domestic violence industry, who wouldn't know an abusive woman if they fell over one.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:34 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"Actually I kicked the crap out of your entire community on the topic."
Batterer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:51 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
"HA HA
That's funny."
Not for the victim. I think do you really could benefit from some professional help. I suggest you try to find some and not from one of those domestic violence parrots who doesn't recognize female violence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:53 PM April 8th, 2004 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
It's getting late. Delete "do"
I think you really could benefit from some professional help. I suggest you try to find some and not from one of those domestic violence parrots who doesn't recognize female violence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think do you really could benefit from some professional help.
I think that you could benefit from an English tutor (hey you guys started the grammar crap).
And someone declaring me a batterer on a message board is hilarious.
battery - an offensive touching or use of force on a person without the person's consent
Yeah, I type words and someone calls me a batterer. Freaking precious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:26 AM April 9th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
I was use the domestic violence definition of battery which includes emotional battery. Your abusive words (expetives) and mean spirited statements have battered many nice people here since you came on this site. Shame on you.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:40 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
TC:
I heard a couple of males commentators on Fox News/Rita Cosby over the weekend, just after this story broke. The first male said he didn't think she was crazy, because she called 911 right after the murders. The other male commentator blamed the husband for knowing his wife was insane, but doing nothing, (I have heard since she displayed no aberant behavior to indicate she would do such a horrible thing as kill her sons). The first commentator then said that they should take the husband out and "shoot him too." He had earlier said, "They should take the jury out and shoot them."
This case fits that same old prejudice, where men have all the responsibility and women are unaccountable, "Prison or the grave for men and social services and special care and privilege for females." This case is just one more example of that old "double standard."
Besides, if every husband who thought his wife was crazy tried to get her help they'd all be in the nut house.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There in lies the sexist issue. It is not over this woman's insanity but of the disparaging assessment of culpability between the husband and the woman.
And they can't kill the dad. Somebody has to raise the maimed one that survived, and it better not be that crazy bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where any of these commentators mental health experts?
Don't shoot the husband. He gots to raise the maimed one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:10 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
They sounded more like lawyers. They spoke "professionally," when not attacking the husband, but I honestly don't recall hearing that they were mental health experts.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:52 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it an ironic coincidence that women's voices, pleading for lenient sentencing, are more frequently "heard" by our courts than male voices pleading for justice.
The statement is true as written no matter how well John Hinckley was, or wasn't treated.
Ray
(click) Female Terrorists Cheat Their Victims
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:02 PM April 6th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh yeah, hearing voices and having severe psychotic delusions."
Oh my gosh, how could I have missed that she was crazy. She doesn't even fit the historical profile of women who murder males. Who can argue with the historical profile? She must be crazy (sarcasm).
Ray
(click) Female Murderess's Profile
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of all the people that attempt an insanity plea only 1% of them ever receive it. The reason is because American jurors are weary of the idea of people getting off scott free. (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychol ogy/insanity/11.html?sect=19)
In reality, an insanity plea is a long shot. Its like a blind hail marry pass with 4 seconds on the clock. For this reason many defense attorneys avoid it. I know you probably think that it's common as hell but that perspective is only perpetuated by TV court room dramas and an over exposure by the media (do you think you would ever see a failed insanity plea on TV).
And she isn't crazy because of my arbitrary judgment but by the unanimous judgment of 5 different psychologists. I think that they are more equipped to make that call then either you or I. The bitch is crazy. Flat out.
If you think she should be shot or killed well then that discussion is really about a reformation of the legal system and how an insanity plea is regarded by the courts. Either way this story is a really shitty way to argue that women get it easier then men. With so many real sexism issues (i.e. child custody, and father’s rights) it makes no sense to me why the sexism argument is made via a crazy bitch that stoned her kids and was declared crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:48 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
“If you think she should be shot or killed well then that discussion is really about a reformation of the legal system and how an insanity plea is regarded by the courts. Either way this story is a really shitty way to argue that women get it easier then men. With so many real sexism issues (i.e. child custody, and father’s rights) it makes no sense to me why the sexism argument is made via a crazy bitch that stoned her kids and was declared crazy.”
I think this case definitely brings back memories of the Andrea Yates case, where to the best of my recollection she was deemed not insane. She was found guilty, but was not sentenced to death. It's been a while so my memory my not have that all correct. I do clearly remember thinking, when her sentenced was read, "There's another female getting a lighter sentence, than a male in similar circumstances." I recall too the vicious attacks on Russell Yates, pointing to alleged responsibility and culpability. Many "newscasters" addressed the issue, "Should Russell Yates be tried?"
I recall "NOW" defending Andrea Yates in an article on their web site. The general tone of her victimhood, echoed by many gender feminists, was that she was a victim of Russell Yates (impregnated repeatedly by the patriarch so he could have power and control over her). I heard that again from others (not NOW) in this case. The husband impregnates the woman repeatedly, and drives her crazy with children and oppression was a criticism I heard used in both of these cases.
It seems curious to me that if a woman chooses to marry and have children, then why at some point along the way should the husband become responsible for everything she does? Our modern, gender feminist, brainwashed society seems to be very accepting that a female becomes a victim, because (as women's studies teaches), "heterosexuality is an oppression of women." Daphne Patai does an excellent examination of this "politically correct prejudice" infecting our colleges and society.
It appears that women want liberation right up to the point of accountability (or marriage) then, when culpability for their actions becomes an issue, the blame just seems to automatically shift to the closest available male in sight.
Ray
(click) All the World's Problems
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally an intelligent response about accountability between the husband and wife.
Christ, it took this long to get a response with this much effort?
Yes, ANONYMOUS, I due believe that when couples are facing similar charges that the women are often viewed as victims and granted leniency. This is where the the debate seriously lies.
As for THIS (the stoning of the kids) case, the bitch is crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, we got your point, "the bitch is crazy." Thank you.
The plea not guilt by reason of insanity is not so much based on whether a person is insane or not, but rather is based on whether the person was capable of knowing that their actions were wrong. Now anyone who would shoot or stone their children is insane. However, most of them know well that doing so is wrong.
The jury found that she did not understand that what she was doing was wrong.
As with Andrea Yates, I think that calling 911 was an indicator to many that she knew what she was doing was wrong. However, the Bible does have examples of people murdering their children as a sign of faith to God, and if she truly believed that God was testing her in this way, then she thought it was the right thing to do.
Andrea Yates on the other hand thought the Devil was making her do it, but she understood that what she was doing was a bad thing.
Personally, I do not accept the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. I personally think that unless the defendant is mentally handicapped and is incapable of understanding right from wrong in general (such as a person with downs syndrome) then they should be found guilty with the sentence to be carried out in a mental institution. If she is ever deemed sane she goes into a normal prison to finish her sentence.
I think the husband had nothing to do with this. They do not ever look at the wife in these cases when a man is the defendant. My ex-friend's husband was molesting her children(from a previous relationship), she knew about it, kept him in the house, and yet she was never even questioned when it all came out. As far as I am concerned she is as guilty of child molestation as if she did it herself.
This whole thing makes me sick. She will be out free in a year or two, and then what?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:23 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Finally an intelligent response about accountability between the husband and wife.
I signed it, so it's not anonymous. Also, in another post you called me a Moron. Clearly you are an abusive female who is prone to emotional terrorism. This type of female was identified in the earliest studies of women involved in domestic violence. See here: Female Emotional Terrorist
You really do have some serious issues. You should get some professional help and not from one of those domestic violence industry parrots who say, "Woman is always the victim, because men have all the power and control." They lie.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hear that all the court systems are so these days, but as a TX resident I can state for a fact the TX courts bend over backwards to give women a more lenient sentence for the same crime.
About the time Yates was sentenced for murdering her sons in Houston, a man was arrested in Dallas for shooting his two daughters (don't recall his name anymore--sorry). I doubt it was even covered by the news outside TX. Like Yates, he was off his psychiatric meds when he did it. Like Yates, he calmly called the other parent after doing the deed.
We all know TX didn't even try for a death penalty against Yates. They sought, and got the death penalty in the other case (he is still alive -- it is awaiting the automatic appeal).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She said she was instructed by God to kill those boys? Perhaps...... Even Abraham was instructed to kill his son, but God stepped forward then and did not let that sacrifice take place. I don't believe for a minute God told her to do so and then let her finish. Thus, God did not instruct her to murder. She knew right from wrong, she chose to ignore it.
Michael
"Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a tip God doesn't exist. So, if he doesn't exist then can't anybody say that God told them anything? Especially if they’re schizophrenic?
You debating whether or not God would condone and offer such a notion (as if it were a factual point) is like discussing whether or not Super Man would kill someone to save Lois Lane.
And anyway, didn't God bet Satan that Job wouldn't leave him. I don't know but that sounds like one f*cked up God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:02 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"Here's a tip God doesn't exist."
Here's a tip, "Prove it." So, since you can neither deductively prove nor deny your assertion, we must conclude that it is a matter to be taken strictly on faith.
Women are use to having many rights to "choose." Women are not used to men having rights to "choose." I "choose" to believe that there is a God. Here's another tip, "You exist." In your comprehension, "Try" to put yourself outside the realm of time sometime and imagine that you will have no end forever. "Try" to imagine that you will just go on, and on, and on and their will never, never be and end to it, to you. Does all this fit conclusively into your simple explanation that God does not exist, or is this just to boggling for a nihilist's comprehension? How do you explain the fact that you exist, that we exist, that the universe exists (micro and macro)? Did you come from nothing? Are you going to nothing? You assume, but you do not know, then you boldly proclaim your ignorance as infallible truth, rather than admit what you are truly ignorant of. I think I understand better now how the radical feminist mind works, or more precisely, "doesn't."
Ray
(click) If A Feminist Imagined It, It must Be True
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't explain any of it, but I am content in my lack of knowledge. But somhow your middle finger is divine and granted you full knowledge of the heavens.
Here's a tip, "Prove it." So, since you can neither deductively prove nor deny your assertion, we must conclude that it is a matter to be taken strictly on faith.
I can prove it. GOD DO YOU EXIST??? Guess what? No reply. I don't believe in your GOD, how can I prove the non existence of something you MORON. Do you understand that? I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS. THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT PRESENT MAKES MY POINT SO. Now you prove it.
And I can comprehend a never ending eternal existence. I realized that while taking mushrooms. The concept is not that mind blowing. Most scientists often believe that the degradation of the mind whittles down at the same rate of the Golden Ratio creating an eternity in the mind.
I do not need to explain how I exist. Because, if you knew that the ship was made inside of the bottle would that make its presence even less incredible or help you understand things any better? If god punched me in the face tonight and said HEY, I EXIST. I would still have work the next day. So it really doesn't matter.
I assume nothing. You do though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:46 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
"I can prove it. GOD DO YOU EXIST??? Guess what? No reply. I don't believe in your GOD, how can I prove the non existence of something Do you understand that? I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS. THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT PRESENT MAKES MY POINT SO. Now you prove it."
You ramble so much that I made no offer to dissect your discourse in any chronological order.
#1 You assume that God is at your beckon call.
"you MORON."
#2 You assume "supremacy" through use of language like this, but the reality is all you prove is that you are an abusive batterer.
#3 "I assume nothing." "I realized that while taking mushrooms."
You assume plenty, and as most emotionally battering females, you instigate and insults while blaming others for holding a view different from your own.
#4 You presume myself and to be a moron after displaying rudimentary powers of reasoning.
#5 "And I can comprehend a never ending eternal existence."
Who do you think you are, God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xamot, this is what you said-
"Here's a tip God doesn't exist. So, if he doesn't exist then can't anybody say that God told them anything? Especially if they’re schizophrenic?"
You are telling us that there is no God as a fact. You cannot prove this, therefore it is simply your opinion.
Opinions are like ...well, you know the rest of the saying.
I believe in God, it is my faith. I do not force my faith on you, so please do not come here and force your lack of faith on us.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:12 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Xamot.
You said earlier in another thread that you respect my culture. I appreatiate that, however, remember my people BELEIVE in a creator, or God, if you will.
One single creator spirit. one who can do ANYTHING includeing come to the earth in the flesh and die for all our sins, includeing mine and yours.
And no God may not ansewer when you say "Hey, God." You have to ask yourself; why would God ansewer some one who doesn't beleive in him anyway? even if he DID ansewer you verbaly would you beleive in him THEN, or just think you were "hearing things"?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:17 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Something I forgot to mention.
My people beleive that in order to hear God, you must first learn the art of "listening".
Because God may not replie to you in spoken words, doesn't mean that he may not ansewer you in a non-verbal fashion.
And yes, we do beleive that God ansewers ALL prayers. Just because the ansewer is sometimes "No" does not mean that he doesn't ansewer prayers.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:18 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"And yes, we do beleive that God ansewers ALL prayers. Just because the ansewer is sometimes "No" does not mean that he doesn't ansewer prayers."
Amen to that.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can prove it. GOD DO YOU EXIST??? Guess what? No reply. I don't believe in your GOD, how can I prove the non existence of something you MORON. Do you understand that? I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS. THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT PRESENT MAKES MY POINT SO. Now you prove it.
Feminist logic. Hahahahaha! GEORGE BUSH, DO YOU EXIST? Oh, he didn't answer me. He must not exist. LOL.
Not to mention that this is such a logically fallacious argument (arguing from one specific to a general rule) that they teach this in beginner's logic class. Duh.
But since when did feminism and it's adherents EVER have anything to do with actually thinking about anything? Um. Never?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:41 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another anonymous fascist. Thanks for supporting what America was founded on you hypocritical pinko rat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree, but at least it gets people talking. Besides, it is fun playing with him. Kinda like a cat and mouse game.
meow..the Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:01 AM April 7th, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Another anonymous fascist. Thanks for supporting what America was founded on you hypocritical pinko rat.
Isn't it enlightening how gender feminists come onto this site, then repeatedly resort to name calling and abuse just like the 35% to 50% of women who abuse men, falsely accuse them, and get away with it. Xamot is commiting a form of domestic violence wherein the abuser engages in emotional battering of the person she is interacting with. It's a tactic female abusers use to assert their power and control, then they blame the man, often lie about a bruise they got playing sports, etc., then have the man arrested for domestic violence. Xamot is strong support of the overwhelming evidence that current domestic violence law is nothing more than the biggest scam ever known in America.
Ray
(click) No Exucse for Female Batterers
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that Xamot is just one of of those people who like to get a rise out of others. It has made no real points at all, it just leaps on whatever sentence will allow it to abuse someone else. I was thinking for awhile that it was fun to play with, but it is boring me. It has a horrid command of the English language, switches topics more times than Carter has liver pills, and is in a severe need of a bar of Zest liberally applied to the inside of it's mouth.
Xemot has chosen this site for today, I am sure tomorrow it will chose some other site, and it will continue spreading like some vile bacterial infection in need of medical treatment. I suggest we just ignore it and hope it goes away. If it doesn't, then we still ignore it and it can waste it's time.
We have far better things to do than listen to this bitter little person try and emasculate us. I know that the men on this site are honerable, kind, decent-hearted men who do not deserve any of the insults xamot has piled on you. Do not let it's childish taunts pull you down to it's level. We have the final say on how we each react, and I for one am done reacting.
~The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:36 PM April 7th, 2004 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
"Xemot has chosen this site for today, I am sure tomorrow it will chose some other site, and it will continue spreading like some vile bacterial infection in need of medical treatment. I suggest we just ignore it and hope it goes away. If it doesn't, then we still ignore it and it can waste it's time."
Jen:
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I remember the Chief Business Officer (a lawyer) at our company saying one time, "When I hear things, and no one refutes them, I believe that their true."
On the other hand, in support of what you are saying, there is an excellent book that talks about people that engage you in an arguementative cycle, wherein they put you on the defense with a verbal attack. Once you respond (defend yourself) they are incapable of letting you go.
The solution is to not communicate with them, zero, nothing, zippo. The book that explains this all so much better than I have here is called The gift of Fear, and is written by a high level security consultant, Gift of Fear
The gift of fear is actually that little voice inside all of us that says, "Hey, something is wrong!" The book spends a lot of time saying, "Listen to what your gift of fear tells you."
The reason I engage someone like that here is because of what my CBO said, and also because there is a need to put those kind of bullies on notice (from a safe distance) that they are abusing other people. I hope "it" gets some help.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
