Re: The greatest challenge facing mankind

From: andrew mandell <>
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 19:33:31 EDT

at this place in history the example you use about the
danger of propaganda is a simplistic version of
Give me a break. That's what threatens mankind! young
treehuggers run amok. If only we could run them down
and enlighten them about the out dated nature of the
Noble Savage story. Then we could move on to the
little problems like the means of modern warfare, the
technological morality of super capitolism that leaves
less and less room for human natality, the life
expectancy in Africal heading towards single digits,
and ...well enough.
From Crichton to Lewis to Horowitz. Horowitz. Now
there's a reason to trust a guy. Listen to me. I know
the answers cuz I was once stupid enough to look at
the bright side of Stalin. Yikes....
Sorry for this meaning less post . I just couldn't
take it. The aboriginal people were a bit of a let
down. There for lets bathe the kiddies in dioxin.
--- janice matchett <> wrote:

> Sorry for the delay in responding, but I'm just now
> getting caught up on
> email since I got back in town for a short period.
> At 08:22 PM 9/26/2005, George Murphy wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <>janice
> matchett
> >Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:44 PM
> >At 05:30 PM 9/26/2005, George Murphy wrote:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: <>janice
> matchett
> >>To: <>George Murphy ;
> >><>
> >>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:48 PM
> [ snips] Among other things :) -- Janice had
> written:
> >>#2#2# Words mean things. Leftist elitists have
> their own personal,
> >>politically correct idea of what constitutes
> "responsible
> >>environmentalism" and those who disagree with
> their definition will have
> >>it crammed down their throats if extremists can
> get away with it.
> >If this is all you meant to say you could just as
> well have skipped it
> >since I said nothing to suggest that I'm a "leftist
> elitist." (Those
> >who've known me long enough to remember my
> campaigning for Goldwater would
> >howl with laughter.)
> #3#3# Goldwater was doing well until his advanced
> senility was exposed
> when he married that politically correct emasculator
> half his age. Sad end
> to a great man.
> You gave me the impression that you have an
> inordinate interest in, and are
> highly focused on, dubious environmental concerns.
> I thought you were a
> supporter of Kyoto and other "follow-the-money" junk
> science. The extremist
> environmentalist movement is merely a front for the
> Marxist/Communist
> agenda. David Horowitz
> <> was raised by
> Communists and used to be an activist, himself.
> Quite interesting - the
> names of other activists he knows from back in his
> "Black Panther" days -
> who are still active - some very low-key for obvious
> reasons:
> If you're not one of the above-mentioned
> "environmentalist whacko" types,
> that's good. :)
> >Do you ever pass up a chance for a political
> harangue?
> #3#3# If I had been espousing the politicized
> scientific/religious
> position you embrace would you view it as a
> "harangue"?
> Or will you attempt to get us to believe that
> science and religion is
> divorced from politics? Man's freedom depends on
> which of the two world
> views (religions) he embraces.
> >>[snip]
> >#2#2# I never inferred, nor do I believe any of
> the "God is not
> >sovereign" ideas that you attribute to me above,
> therefore I see no
> >relevance of this to the paragraphs of mine that
> you quoted. Did you mean
> >it to have some connection? Or was it just
> catharsis?
> >
> >Your reference to 'Only one who embraces one of the
> various expressions of
> >the man-centered religion would think that puny men
> can thwart God's will
> >unless the arrogant elites step in to "save the
> planet"' show that my
> >criticism is on target. Unless you just don't know
> how to express
> >yourself very well, the clear implication of your
> statement is that
> >humanity can't "thwart God's will" by destroying
> the planet - i.e., that
> >God will make sure that the planet is saved &
> doesn't need any help from
> >"arrogant elites."
> #3#3# My God is the God of providence and he says
> he knows the end from
> the beginning. Whatever happens - good or evil - is
> within his permissive
> will. His plan is in motion and in spite of what
> the arrogant religious
> left believes, he is not in the process of
> "learning" anything from his
> creation, nor does anything that man would do,
> "surprise" him.
> Christians are free to love God and do as they
> please. (Let that one
> sink in) LOL
> >If this isn't what you meant then you should write
> more clearly.
> #3#3# Is that the second or third time you tried
> to blame me for your
> lack of comprehension (I think you termed it,
> "thick-headnesses")
> Since you used the word "should", did you mean for
> us to infer that you
> were implying you are in charge of behavior
> modification for the adults on
> this forum?
> > (Among other things you used "inferred" where I
> think you meant
> > "implied" - a common error.)
> #3#3# I sure did. Sorry. LOL
> BTW! Since you missed these, I thought I'd point
> out that I also pulled
> another boo-boo by misspelling two words, [1]
> origin and [2] monitor in
> my post to Pim van Meurs on 9/23/2005, to wit:
> [1] "Origion of man now proved. -- *Metaphysics*
> must flourish. - He who
> understands baboon would do more toward
> *Metaphysics* than Locke." ---
> Darwin, *Notebook M*, August 16, 1838 ]
> [2] If this forum existed in Galileo's day, and
> he joined "the
> discussion", how long do you think the easily
> offended would have put up
> with him here? :) I can only imagine what the
> behind-the-scenes whining
> and sniping against him would have looked like as
> the namby-pamby,
> self-appointed hall-moniter-types "reported" him
> so as to have him
> "moderated" and forced to be more "reasonable".
> "How DARE he not
> respect / esteem the opinions of the "learned"
> majority as being worthy
> of carrying more weight than the fools on the
> forum", they no doubt would
> have confidently intoned."
> Sigh. But that's the chance one takes when one
> doesn't use spell-check or
> take the time to carefully edit ones posts for
> errors before hitting
> "send". :)
> >(Such claims are not uncommon among today's
> so-called conservatives. Page
> >152 of Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be is a
> good example.)
> #3#3# So, like the Haines lady, unless you say it's
> conservative, it ain't
> conservative? - is that it? LOL
> >& you should make up your own sarcasm. Just
> repeating back what someone
> >else has said isn't very witty.
> #3#3# I "should"??? And something ain't witty
> unless you say it's
> witty? LOL
> >Among other things snipped, Janice had written:
> >#2#2# A socialist's idea of the meaning of the
> word "dominion" in
> >Gen.1:28, etc., is different from a capitalist's
> point of view. Never the
> >twain shall meet. Capitalism is the only moral
> form of economic
> >activity. To wit:
> Defense of
> >Capitalism (Debunking The Religious Left)
> >
> >Trying to read modern economic systems back into
> Genesis is as mistaken as
> >trying to find general relativity there. This
> doesn't mean that scripture
> >is of no importance for economic issues today but
> you can't start by
> >reading your preconceptions back into the text -
> whether you're a
=== message truncated ===

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
Received on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:33:31 -0700 (PDT)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 03 2005 - 19:36:04 EDT