In article <115mum5$2fsp7$3@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:19 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
"someone descended and returned" "looking for a pattern"
Buddha born approx 623 B.C.
Jesus born approx 0 B.C./A.D. (Was there even a Year
Zero??) Muhammad born approx 570 A.D.
My theory E.T. that visited Earth three times ..... and then
returned to E.T.'s Home Planet each time before returning.
So about every 600 years. So we should have seen one around 1200
and one around 1800 presumably?
Yeah .... except they were probably dismissed as Witches or some such.
Would make sense. I am sure if Jesus came again today, He would be
denounced at a peacenik hippie and held down by police while they cut
his hair. --scott
In article <115mum5$2fsp7$3@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 11:19 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
"someone descended and returned" "looking for a pattern"
Buddha born approx 623 B.C.
Jesus born approx 0 B.C./A.D. (Was there even a Year Zero??) >>>> Muhammad born approx 570 A.D.
My theory E.T. that visited Earth three times ..... and then returned to >>>> E.T.'s Home Planet each time before returning.
So about every 600 years. So we should have seen one around 1200 and one >>> around 1800 presumably?
Yeah .... except they were probably dismissed as Witches or some such.
Would make sense. I am sure if Jesus came again today, He would be denounced >at a peacenik hippie and held down by police while they cut his hair.
Do the wrds
You cannot hold down Jesus.
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:out".
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the City
walls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French
crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and at
which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them
Spain?
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of Southern
A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s, but
gracethere wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against the
Cathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an evil
one who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god,
represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of
(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS) rendition.
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence (but
wine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the status of
The"perfect" and went to heaven on death.? If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar neighbors.
southernwar became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab
Catharism,estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they
increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.? He would have abhorred
backand he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to believe
that JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire, allowed
in, and died, some said of poison.? Orthodox Christians took great
delight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but he
was never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the mystery of
the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s, but
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of Southern Spain? >>>
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the City
walls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French
crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and at
which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them out". >>>>
there wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against the
Cathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an evil
one who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god,
represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of grace
(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS) rendition.
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence (but
wine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the status of
"perfect" and went to heaven on death.˙ If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar neighbors. The >>> war became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab southern >>> estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they
increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.˙ He would have abhorred Catharism,
and he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to believe
that JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire, allowed back >>> in, and died, some said of poison.˙ Orthodox Christians took great
delight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but he
was never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the mystery of >> the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the
Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
Then again, a recent report on a survey had more than half of self-indentified Evangelicals agreeing with a statement that Jesus was
just of human being. Note that there are entire denominations based on
the idea that Jesus was a Great Teacher, and nothing more, so ...
confusion ... on this point is nothing to get excited about.
In article <115nnj6$2p4io$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s, but
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the City
walls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French
crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and at
which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them out".
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of Southern Spain? >>
there wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against the
Cathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an evil
one who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god,
represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of grace
(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence (but
wine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the status of
"perfect" and went to heaven on death. If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar neighbors.
The war became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab
southern estates.
Arius had nothing to do with this. He would have abhorred Catharism,
and he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to believe
that JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire, allowed back
in, and died, some said of poison. Orthodox Christians took great
delight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but he
was never skinned.
The Albigensians show up in some SF, in particular in Meredith's
Timeliner trilogy.
Iberia was muslim at the start of the 11th Century.
The Doctor wrote:
Iberia was muslim at the start of the 11th Century.
Mostly Muslim ruled from the early 700s. What percentage of the
population was Muslim at various times is unclear.
In the early years a number of Visigothic nobles converted so as to save their lands. The sincerity of their conversions can be doubted (they
had only recently converted from Arian to Catholic), though they did
wage war against the remnant Christian states of the north.
Politics frequently trumped religion. Christian-Muslim alliances
against other Christian or Muslim powers were common. Even Duke Odo of Aquitaine was allied with a Berber lord who was on the outs with the
Muslim noble who claimed to rule all Iberia. Just as Odo was on the outs with Charles Martel.
In article <115q7pp$3iq3m$1@dont-email.me>,at
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/15/26 08:56, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the City >>>>>>> walls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French
crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and
out".which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them
Spain?
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of Southern
but
A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s,
thethere wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against
evilCathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an
graceone who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god,
represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of
rendition.(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS)
(but
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence
ofwine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the status
neighbors. The"perfect" and went to heaven on death.˙ If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar
southernwar became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab
Catharism,estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they
increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.˙ He would have abhorred
believeand he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to
backthat JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire, allowed
greatin, and died, some said of poison.˙ Orthodox Christians took
hedelight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but
ofwas never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the mystery
the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the
Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
I thought it was fairly obvious that I am a heretic.
Jesus aka Reb Jeshua was human and Christ is an old myth with
many heroes from mythology taking that role.
Please explain the Virgin birth.
In article <he218ltdungk393uteva42aktr7tbdrgt8@4ax.com>,at
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers >><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the City >>>>>> walls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French
crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and
out".which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them
but
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of Southern Spain?
A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s,
there wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against the
evilCathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an
graceone who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god,
represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of
rendition.(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS)
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence (but
ofwine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the status
The"perfect" and went to heaven on death.? If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar neighbors.
southernwar became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab
Catharism,estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they >>>increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.? He would have abhorred
and he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to believe
backthat JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire, allowed
in, and died, some said of poison.? Orthodox Christians took great
hedelight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but
ofwas never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the mystery
the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the
Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
Then again, a recent report on a survey had more than half of >>self-indentified Evangelicals agreeing with a statement that Jesus was
just of human being. Note that there are entire denominations based on
the idea that Jesus was a Great Teacher, and nothing more, so ...
confusion ... on this point is nothing to get excited about.
Jesus is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
The RCC is the propecied Church of Thyatira.
In article <robertaw-7C31C0.21580415082026@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <115qfva$3lkpj$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
(Snip!)
Iberia was muslim at the start of the 11th Century.
Mostly Muslim ruled from the early 700s. What percentage of the
population was Muslim at various times is unclear.
In the early years a number of Visigothic nobles converted so as to save >>> their lands. The sincerity of their conversions can be doubted (they
had only recently converted from Arian to Catholic), though they did
wage war against the remnant Christian states of the north.
Politics frequently trumped religion. Christian-Muslim alliances
against other Christian or Muslim powers were common. Even Duke Odo of
Aquitaine was allied with a Berber lord who was on the outs with the
Muslim noble who claimed to rule all Iberia. Just as Odo was on the outs >>> with Charles Martel.
About 3 centuries later (after the collapse of the Caliphate of
Cordoba), the great Spanish national hero Rodrigo D??az de Vivar (aka El
Cid) served under Islam rulers about as much time he served under
Christian rulers.
Such is Holy War.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:44:21 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
In article <115q7pp$3iq3m$1@dont-email.me>,
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/15/26 08:56, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of Southern Spain?
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the City >>>>>>>> walls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French >>>>>>>> crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and at >>>>>>>> which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them out". >>>>>>>
A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s, but >>>>>> there wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against the >>>>>> Cathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an evil >>>>>> one who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god,
represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of grace >>>>>> (and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS) rendition. >>>>>
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence (but >>>>>> wine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the status of >>>>>> "perfect" and went to heaven on death.?˙ If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar neighbors. The >>>>>> war became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab southern >>>>>> estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they
increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.?˙ He would have abhorred Catharism, >>>>>> and he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to believe >>>>>> that JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire, allowed back >>>>>> in, and died, some said of poison.?˙ Orthodox Christians took great >>>>>> delight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but he >>>>>> was never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the mystery of >>>>> the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the
Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
I thought it was fairly obvious that I am a heretic.
Jesus aka Reb Jeshua was human and Christ is an old myth with
many heroes from mythology taking that role.
Please explain the Virgin birth.
Given her point of view, I would say she just did.
On 8/16/26 09:55, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:44:21 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
Please explain the Virgin birth.
Given her point of view, I would say she just did.
The Virgin Birth is an RC and maybe Orthodox doctrine that
alleges that God was present in Jesus and that only a virgin could
be worthy of such birth. Some say that the child emerged from her
side, that she was impregnated by Divine Action. Further that
G*d had intervened to free Mary from the taint of Original Sin.
But in those times a Virgin was an independent woman not
subjected to the authority of a husband. Not necessarily a
virgo intacto or woman who had not had intercourse.
We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present. Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
People who benefit from that hierarchical order feel
that civilization will collapse if they do not have lower
ranked people to push around physically or verbally.
I am an agnostic Deist but if any divinity rules
human society it must be Eris who controls the counsels
of mankind.
In article <9sq38lhiuee8gc0uue4r5ethms1u9mo62l@4ax.com>,City
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:37:37 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
In article <he218ltdungk393uteva42aktr7tbdrgt8@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers >>>><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the
atwalls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the French >>>>>>>> crusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France and
out".which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them
Southern Spain?
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of
but
A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the 700s,
thethere wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against
evilCathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an
graceone who created the world for us to suffer in while the real god, >>>>>> represented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life of
rendition.(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS)
(but
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence
status ofwine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the
neighbors. The"perfect" and went to heaven on death.? If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the
casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar
Catharism,war became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab southern
estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they >>>>>increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.? He would have abhorred
believeand he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to
allowed backthat JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire,
greatin, and died, some said of poison.? Orthodox Christians took
hedelight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but
ofwas never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the mystery
wasthe Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the >>>>Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
Then again, a recent report on a survey had more than half of >>>>self-indentified Evangelicals agreeing with a statement that Jesus
onjust of human being. Note that there are entire denominations based
the idea that Jesus was a Great Teacher, and nothing more, so ... >>>>confusion ... on this point is nothing to get excited about.
Jesus is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
The RCC is the propecied Church of Thyatira.
That is one theory, yes. It is based on the idea that the Seven
Churches represent different historic periods.
Another theory is that they are examples of what the Church, and each >>individual Church, down to each and every congregation, is, and was,
and will be: a mix of different believers in different states.
If it is propecised, it is done.
In article <115uoho$trf9$1@dont-email.me>,to indicate their joy of child sexual molestation)??
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 17/08/2026 2:57 am, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:37:37 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
In article <he218ltdungk393uteva42aktr7tbdrgt8@4ax.com>, Paul S
Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
<Snip>
Arius had nothing to do with this. He would have abhorred
Catharism, and he lived in the time of Constantine. His
"heresy" was to believe that JC was a created being. He was
exiled from the empire, allowed back in, and died, some said
of poison. Orthodox Christians took great delight in
inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but he
was never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the
mystery of the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the
Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
Then again, a recent report on a survey had more than half of
self-indentified Evangelicals agreeing with a statement that
Jesus was just of human being. Note that there are entire
denominations based on the idea that Jesus was a Great Teacher,
and nothing more, so ... confusion ... on this point is nothing
to get excited about.
Jesus is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
The RCC is the propecied Church of Thyatira.
And where does YOUR Church fit in here, Binky(Word used by paedophiles
That is one theory, yes. It is based on the idea that the Seven
Churches represent different historic periods.
Sorry!! "the Seven Churches"?? What are they, please??
The seven churches Paul writes to in Asia minor now modern day Turkey.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/16/26 09:55, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:44:21 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo mostly confused bits and pieces. sorry about that, but that's
how I see it.>
Please explain the Virgin birth.
Given her point of view, I would say she just did.
The Virgin Birth is an RC and maybe Orthodox doctrine that
alleges that God was present in Jesus and that only a virgin could
be worthy of such birth. Some say that the child emerged from her
side, that she was impregnated by Divine Action. Further that
G*d had intervened to free Mary from the taint of Original Sin.
It is rather more general than that. At least, in official doctrine.
But in those times a Virgin was an independent woman not
subjected to the authority of a husband. Not necessarily a
virgo intacto or woman who had not had intercourse.
There was no such thing as an "independent woman". This was the time
of the /real/ Traditiional Family Values, and there was /always/ a man holding her leash: a father, a husband, a brother, an uncle, a son ... always.
This is based on Isaiah, and the Hebrew there means "young woman".
<snippo as much babbling as possible>
We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present. Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
Your faith in the reality of those explanations is touching.
People who benefit from that hierarchical order feel
that civilization will collapse if they do not have lower
ranked people to push around physically or verbally.
That's actually not a bad summary. Except that "heirarchical" is
inherently religious (see derivation) and so limited in scope and "civilization" is often claimed but rarely defined.
I am an agnostic Deist but if any divinity rules
human society it must be Eris who controls the counsels
of mankind.
Classic deists don't believe God is present in the world at all and
are monotheists[1] so, for them, no other gods exist.
[1] I'm not sure "monodeist" is ever used. The confusion, of course,
is because some terms use Latin /deus/ and others use Greek /theos/
for "God".
Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Contemporary_Deism>
but I don't think believing in other gods, such as Eris, fits well
into any of them.
In article <115t4ar$eqpr$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <robertaw-7C31C0.21580415082026@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <115qfva$3lkpj$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
(Snip!)
Iberia was muslim at the start of the 11th Century.
Mostly Muslim ruled from the early 700s. What percentage of the
population was Muslim at various times is unclear.
In the early years a number of Visigothic nobles converted so as to save >>>>> their lands. The sincerity of their conversions can be doubted (they >>>>> had only recently converted from Arian to Catholic), though they did >>>>> wage war against the remnant Christian states of the north.
Politics frequently trumped religion. Christian-Muslim alliances
against other Christian or Muslim powers were common. Even Duke Odo of >>>>> Aquitaine was allied with a Berber lord who was on the outs with the >>>>> Muslim noble who claimed to rule all Iberia. Just as Odo was on the outs >>>>> with Charles Martel.
About 3 centuries later (after the collapse of the Caliphate of
Cordoba), the great Spanish national hero Rodrigo D???az de Vivar (aka El >>>> Cid) served under Islam rulers about as much time he served under
Christian rulers.
Such is Holy War.
No, that was secular war.
Which is the point of the previous two posts. Religious wars often
change into secular wars. As in the 30 years war where Catholic France
weighed in on the Protestant side, because an Austrian/Spanish victory
would be bad for France while the Protestant Dutch helped France repress
it's own Protestants because they needed French support for the wider war. >>
And the Spanish allowed their enemies, the Dutch, to run the Spanish
coastal trade because they themselves could not, and the Dutch did this
because they needed the money from Spain to fight Spain.
William Hyde
Ever read Doctor Who : The Massacre of St. Bartholomew?
On 17/08/2026 2:57 am, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:37:37 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:
In article <he218ltdungk393uteva42aktr7tbdrgt8@4ax.com>, Paul S
Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
<Snip>
Arius had nothing to do with this. He would have abhorred
Catharism, and he lived in the time of Constantine. His
"heresy" was to believe that JC was a created being. He was
exiled from the empire, allowed back in, and died, some said
of poison. Orthodox Christians took great delight in
inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him, but he was never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the
mystery of the Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the
Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
Then again, a recent report on a survey had more than half of
self-indentified Evangelicals agreeing with a statement that
Jesus was just of human being. Note that there are entire
denominations based on the idea that Jesus was a Great Teacher,
and nothing more, so ... confusion ... on this point is nothing
to get excited about.
Jesus is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
The RCC is the propecied Church of Thyatira.
And where does YOUR Church fit in here, Binky??
That is one theory, yes. It is based on the idea that the Seven
Churches represent different historic periods.
Sorry!! "the Seven Churches"?? What are they, please??
In article <115vnkd$18t03$2@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <115t4ar$eqpr$1@dont-email.me>,Vivar (aka El
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <robertaw-7C31C0.21580415082026@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <115qfva$3lkpj$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
(Snip!)
Iberia was muslim at the start of the 11th Century.
Mostly Muslim ruled from the early 700s. What percentage of the >>>>>>> population was Muslim at various times is unclear.
In the early years a number of Visigothic nobles converted so as to save
their lands. The sincerity of their conversions can be doubted (they >>>>>>> had only recently converted from Arian to Catholic), though they did >>>>>>> wage war against the remnant Christian states of the north.
Politics frequently trumped religion. Christian-Muslim alliances >>>>>>> against other Christian or Muslim powers were common. Even Duke Odo of >>>>>>> Aquitaine was allied with a Berber lord who was on the outs with the >>>>>>> Muslim noble who claimed to rule all Iberia. Just as Odo was on the outs
with Charles Martel.
About 3 centuries later (after the collapse of the Caliphate of
Cordoba), the great Spanish national hero Rodrigo D??????az de
Cid) served under Islam rulers about as much time he served under
Christian rulers.
Such is Holy War.
No, that was secular war.
Which is the point of the previous two posts. Religious wars often
change into secular wars. As in the 30 years war where Catholic France >>>> weighed in on the Protestant side, because an Austrian/Spanish victory >>>> would be bad for France while the Protestant Dutch helped France repress >>>> it's own Protestants because they needed French support for the wider war. >>>>
And the Spanish allowed their enemies, the Dutch, to run the Spanish
coastal trade because they themselves could not, and the Dutch did this >>>> because they needed the money from Spain to fight Spain.
William Hyde
Ever read Doctor Who : The Massacre of St. Bartholomew?
No. I've only read works of history on that day and that time.
It is a rather intresting book.
It does explain the British psyche against the RCC.
hierarchical order is most clearly experienced not only in religion but
in the Military organizations.
In article <tbc68l154vev3a5qne9p7b5d6bbduhbkis@4ax.com>,City
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 18:43:34 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
In article <9sq38lhiuee8gc0uue4r5ethms1u9mo62l@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:37:37 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
In article <he218ltdungk393uteva42aktr7tbdrgt8@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:31:30 -0700, BobbieSellers >>>>>><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/14/26 11:42, William Hyde wrote:
Daniel70 wrote:
On 14/08/2026 5:27 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
You leave out Arius who was skinned and his hide hung on the
Frenchwalls, he was responsible for the Arian heresy which the
and atcrusade wiped out by killing everyone in the South of France
them out".which the memorable phrase "Kill them all and let God sort
700s, butSouthern Spain?
Wasn't South France widely Muslim ... or am I thinking of
A part of Southern France was under Muslim occupation in the
thethere wasn't much conversion.
The crusade referred to is the anti-Albigensian crusade, against
evilCathars, dualists who believed that the old testament god was an
god,one who created the world for us to suffer in while the real
of gracerepresented by JC would welcome our souls once we lived a life
(but(and we got an infinite number of chances).
Thanks to your numerous corrections to my confused (by RC HS) rendition.
Cathars were to attempt to abstain from sex, meat, and violence
status ofwine was OK) and if they succeeded in this they attained the
neighbors. The"perfect" and went to heaven on death.? If not, try again.
While the Cathars were wiped out or dispersed, the bulk of the >>>>>>>> casualties were local Catholics who defended their Cathar
war became a religious pretext for landless northerners to grab southern
estates.
Well some of them had estates by which murders of the locals they
Catharism,increased.
Arius had nothing to do with this.? He would have abhorred
believeand he lived in the time of Constantine. His "heresy" was to
allowed backthat JC was a created being. He was exiled from the empire,
greatin, and died, some said of poison.? Orthodox Christians took
but hedelight in inventing a painful and embarrassing death for him,
mystery ofwas never skinned.
Jesus not the Christ was a created being. It is part of the
wasthe Incarnation aka being in the meat.
If that is your memory of RC theology, you may want to find the >>>>>>Catholic Encyclopedia on line and give it a read on this topic.
Then again, a recent report on a survey had more than half of >>>>>>self-indentified Evangelicals agreeing with a statement that Jesus
onjust of human being. Note that there are entire denominations based
the idea that Jesus was a Great Teacher, and nothing more, so ... >>>>>>confusion ... on this point is nothing to get excited about.
Jesus is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity.
The RCC is the propecied Church of Thyatira.
That is one theory, yes. It is based on the idea that the Seven >>>>Churches represent different historic periods.
Another theory is that they are examples of what the Church, and each >>>>individual Church, down to each and every congregation, is, and was, >>>>and will be: a mix of different believers in different states.
If it is propecised, it is done.
Well, yes, but is it? Or is "prophesy" merely a (very popular) >>interpretation? Which may be in error, who can say?
Thell me which propesies of the Bile are false?
But you appear to be applying it to society
as a whole. The fact that 1%-ers act to
maintain their dominance does not make
society a hierarchy.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/16/26 09:55, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 01:44:21 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo mostly confused bits and pieces. sorry about that, but that's
how I see it.>
Please explain the Virgin birth.
Given her point of view, I would say she just did.
The Virgin Birth is an RC and maybe Orthodox doctrine that
alleges that God was present in Jesus and that only a virgin could
be worthy of such birth. Some say that the child emerged from her
side, that she was impregnated by Divine Action. Further that
G*d had intervened to free Mary from the taint of Original Sin.
It is rather more general than that. At least, in official doctrine.
But in those times a Virgin was an independent woman not
subjected to the authority of a husband. Not necessarily a
virgo intacto or woman who had not had intercourse.
There was no such thing as an "independent woman". This was the time
of the /real/ Traditiional Family Values, and there was /always/ a man holding her leash: a father, a husband, a brother, an uncle, a son ... always.
This is based on Isaiah, and the Hebrew there means "young woman".
<snippo as much babbling as possible>
We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present. Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
Your faith in the reality of those explanations is touching.
People who benefit from that hierarchical order feel
that civilization will collapse if they do not have lower
ranked people to push around physically or verbally.
That's actually not a bad summary. Except that "heirarchical" is
inherently religious (see derivation) and so limited in scope and "civilization" is often claimed but rarely defined.
I am an agnostic Deist but if any divinity rules
human society it must be Eris who controls the counsels
of mankind.
Classic deists don't believe God is present in the world at all and
are monotheists[1] so, for them, no other gods exist.
[1] I'm not sure "monodeist" is ever used. The confusion, of course,
is because some terms use Latin /deus/ and others use Greek /theos/
for "God".
Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Contemporary_Deism>
but I don't think believing in other gods, such as Eris, fits well
into any of them.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
But you appear to be applying it to society as a whole. The fact that >>1%-ers act to maintain their dominance does not make society a
hierarchy.
But did Jesus call for hierarchies?
The world is full of people who claim belief but then
act in ways contrary to the teachings that they are
supposed to be following.
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic
Churches about fifteen times a year.
Sorry! "RC HS"??
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches about fifteen >>times a year.
Roman Cathlolic Hierarchical system IIRC.
On 19/08/2026 6:28 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 8/17/26 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
<Snip>
˙˙˙˙We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present.˙ Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
Your faith in the reality of those explanations is touching.
˙˙˙˙˙I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches and in RC HS so I
know what it says and how phony it is.
Sorry! "RC HS"??
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches about fifteen times a year.
Daniel70 wrote:
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic
Churches about fifteen times a year.
Congratulations, here's your no-prize...
The bad news is, you're still going to Hell.
See you there mate...
:-)
On 19/08/2026 6:28 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 8/17/26 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
<Snip>
˙˙˙˙We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present.˙ Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
Your faith in the reality of those explanations is touching.
˙˙˙˙˙I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches and in RC HS so I
know what it says and how phony it is.
Sorry! "RC HS"??
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches about fifteen times a year.
On 8/17/26 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
USA present day, on top white men of wealth, next down white women of
wealth, less wealthy people, poor white people, poor people who
are not white.
On 19/08/2026 6:28 am, BobbieSellers wrote:so I
On 8/17/26 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
<Snip>
????We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present.? Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
Your faith in the reality of those explanations is touching.
????I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches and in RC HS
know what it says and how phony it is.
Sorry! "RC HS"??
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches about fifteen >times a year.
In article <11607ph$1e5pn$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <115vnkd$18t03$2@dont-email.me>,D?????????????az de
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <115t4ar$eqpr$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <robertaw-7C31C0.21580415082026@news.individual.net>, >>>>>>> Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <115qfva$3lkpj$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
(Snip!)
Iberia was muslim at the start of the 11th Century.
Mostly Muslim ruled from the early 700s. What percentage of the >>>>>>>>> population was Muslim at various times is unclear.
In the early years a number of Visigothic nobles converted so as to save
their lands. The sincerity of their conversions can be doubted (they
had only recently converted from Arian to Catholic), though they did >>>>>>>>> wage war against the remnant Christian states of the north.
Politics frequently trumped religion. Christian-Muslim alliances >>>>>>>>> against other Christian or Muslim powers were common. Even Duke Odo of
Aquitaine was allied with a Berber lord who was on the outs with the >>>>>>>>> Muslim noble who claimed to rule all Iberia. Just as Odo was on the outs
with Charles Martel.
About 3 centuries later (after the collapse of the Caliphate of >>>>>>>> Cordoba), the great Spanish national hero Rodrigo
Vivar (aka El
Cid) served under Islam rulers about as much time he served under >>>>>>>> Christian rulers.
Such is Holy War.
No, that was secular war.
Which is the point of the previous two posts. Religious wars often >>>>>> change into secular wars. As in the 30 years war where Catholic France >>>>>> weighed in on the Protestant side, because an Austrian/Spanish victory >>>>>> would be bad for France while the Protestant Dutch helped France repress >>>>>> it's own Protestants because they needed French support for the wider war.
And the Spanish allowed their enemies, the Dutch, to run the Spanish >>>>>> coastal trade because they themselves could not, and the Dutch did this >>>>>> because they needed the money from Spain to fight Spain.
William Hyde
Ever read Doctor Who : The Massacre of St. Bartholomew?
No. I've only read works of history on that day and that time.
It is a rather intresting book.
It does explain the British psyche against the RCC.
That's a much more complicated issue.
I had an uncle whose paternal line left Europe for England shortly
after, and because of, St Barts. Given where they lived, it proved to
be a good idea.
You got my point.
The only raving anti-catholic in my extended family was
an ignoramus who doubtless never heard of St Barts and
was probably hazy on the location of France.
I believe that he was an ex-catholic himself.
As I said, it's complicated.
On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 19:56:09 +1000, Daniel70
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches
about fifteen times a year.
I don't think she was referring to reading pericopes in public,
although that is certainly possible.
I think she is saying that she has read more than a little of
it. Possibly a lot more.
fifteenSorry! "RC HS"??
This being bliss, I would say "Roman Catholic High School" is what it >>meant.
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches about
times a year.
I don't think she was referring to reading pericopes in public,
although that is certainly possible. I think she is saying that she
Are you from the USA?
--has read more than a little of it. Possibly a lot more.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 02:52:25 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo>
Sorry! "RC HS"??
This being bliss, I would say "Roman Catholic High School" is what it >>>meant.
When I was growing up, one of the Roosevelt High School (the mascot
was a bear, guess which Roosevelt it was named after) sports chants
was "Boo Blanchet!".
Anyone who has really studied history learns that most
popes were ambitious and power-mad and absent a few (Francis),
not particuarly interested in the poor.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 02:52:25 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo>
Sorry! "RC HS"??
This being bliss, I would say "Roman Catholic High School" is what it >>>>meant.
When I was growing up, one of the Roosevelt High School (the mascot
was a bear, guess which Roosevelt it was named after) sports chants
was "Boo Blanchet!".
Prior to the 1970s, there was a great deal of anti-catholicism
in the united states. To the extent that protestant parents
would not attend their son's wedding when he married a Catholic girl
in the 1950s. There was also a lot of controversy when JFK was
elected over the potential that the pope[*] may influence US politics.
Fortunately, the USA is more secular now than at any point in the
past. Although the current administration and the goofy red party
are trying their best to reverse that (e.g. Texas).
[*] Anyone who has really studied history learns that most popes--
were ambitious and power-mad and absent a few (Francis), not particuarly >interested in the poor.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Anyone who has really studied history learns that most
popes were ambitious and power-mad and absent a few (Francis),
not particuarly interested in the poor.
I assume that's because the poor didn't have enough wealth to
make very generous donations... so the power mad pontiffs
preferred to focus on enriching the Vatican first.
However, it's the economically vulnerable believers that sustain
religious institutions through their faith and giving what
little they do have. The whole house of cards would collapse
without the gullible poor. Their simplicity makes them
believers... and believers sustain the racket.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:51:18 GMT, "Blueshirt"
<blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Anyone who has really studied history learns that most
popes were ambitious and power-mad and absent a few
(Francis), not particuarly interested in the poor.
I assume that's because the poor didn't have enough wealth to
make very generous donations... so the power mad pontiffs
preferred to focus on enriching the Vatican first.
However, it's the economically vulnerable believers that
sustain religious institutions through their faith and
giving what little they do have. The whole house of cards
would collapse without the gullible poor. Their simplicity
makes them believers... and believers sustain the racket.
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard of Marx.
So, what else is new?
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Anyone who has really studied history learns that most
popes were ambitious and power-mad and absent a few (Francis),
not particuarly interested in the poor.
I assume that's because the poor didn't have enough wealth to
make very generous donations... so the power mad pontiffs
preferred to focus on enriching the Vatican first.
However, it's the economically vulnerable believers that sustain
religious institutions through their faith and giving what
little they do have. The whole house of cards would collapse
without the gullible poor. Their simplicity makes them
believers... and believers sustain the racket.
On 20/08/2026 2:32 am, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 19:56:09 +1000, Daniel70"I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches" could mean she, silently,
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 19/08/2026 6:28 am, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 8/17/26 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 13:38:08 -0700, BobbieSellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
<Snip>
˙˙˙˙˙We moved from stories to real explanations for natural
phenomenon from the 17th century through the present.˙ Some
people who derives power from the stone age stores resist
these explanations which still give men power over women at
the least and impose a hierarchical order on society.
Your faith in the reality of those explanations is touching.
˙ ˙˙˙˙I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches and in RC HS so I
know what it says and how phony it is.
Sorry! "RC HS"??
This being bliss, I would say "Roman Catholic High School" is what it
meant.
I read the Lesson in two regional Roman Catholic Churches about fifteen
times a year.
I don't think she was referring to reading pericopes in public,
although that is certainly possible. I think she is saying that she
has read more than a little of it. Possibly a lot more.
reads the Books of The Bible whilst at Services .... I don't/didn't know.
"I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches" could mean she, silently, >reads the Books of The Bible whilst at Services .... I don't/didn't know.
Melissa?
"red for republicand and blue for democrats" is confusing.
In most other conutries, blue is for conservative
and
red are for Liberlas or Socialists - pick your country.
In article <116c1o2$13kdo$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 3:11 am, The True Melissa wrote:
The Doctor wrote in article <1169o3h$2kla$12@gallifrey.nk.ca>:BobbieSellers is a Woman whom Binky(Word used by paedophiles to
"I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches" could mean she,
silently, reads the Books of The Bible whilst at Services .... I
don't/didn't know.
Melissa?
What?
I'm not in this thread. I'm not the "she" they mean.
indicate their joy of child sexual molestation) has, apparently
dragged into RADW from RASW
--
Daniel70
talk as a paedophile DannyBoy, get treated as a pedophile Dannyboy.
On 22/08/2026 3:11 am, The True Melissa wrote:
The Doctor wrote in article <1169o3h$2kla$12@gallifrey.nk.ca>:BobbieSellers is a Woman whom Binky has, apparently dragged into RADW
"I read the bible in 3 evangelical churches" could mean she, silently, >>>> reads the Books of The Bible whilst at Services .... I don't/didn't
know.
Melissa?
What?
I'm not in this thread. I'm not the "she" they mean.
from RASW
"red for republicand and blue for democrats" is confusing.
In most other conutries, blue is for conservative
and
red are for Liberlas or Socialists - pick your country.
I prefer printed material as you don't have pay for the
electricity to read it mostly. All the good shows on broadcast
are stuck in the 4 PM - 9 PM high cost electricity time period.
This is due to high air conditioning usage in the hotter parts
of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:50:12 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo>
"red for republicand and blue for democrats" is confusing.
Recently, it was revealed here that it was chosen (Blue having already
been taken by Democrats) because it begins with "R", as does
"Republican".
Such is the seriousness with which this was taken.
In most other conutries, blue is for conservative
and
red are for Liberlas or Socialists - pick your country.
Personally, I always thought the color for "Republican" should be
yellow -- to match the broad yellow stripe running up their backs.
And The Donald's antics have done /nothing/ to suggest otherwise.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:31:23 -0700, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
I prefer printed material as you don't have pay for the
electricity to read it mostly. All the good shows on broadcast
are stuck in the 4 PM - 9 PM high cost electricity time period.
This is due to high air conditioning usage in the hotter parts
of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.
I would say that all of that is the result of the General
Persnicketiness of Things.
The corporatist democrats are quite conservative much
more so than the paid off by Corporations and oligarchs Republicans.
Trump is a communist who has had the the Federal Government buy
stakes in a chip maker.
and the Constitutional Conservative parties. I think Trump
has destroyed the value of the Republican label along with
his stooges in the White House and the legislative branch.
On 8/22/26 09:12, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:50:12 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo>
"red for republicand and blue for democrats" is confusing.
Recently, it was revealed here that it was chosen (Blue having already
been taken by Democrats) because it begins with "R", as does
"Republican".
Such is the seriousness with which this was taken.
In most other conutries, blue is for conservative
The corporatist democrats are quite conservative much
more so than the paid off by Corporations and oligarchs Republicans.
Trump is a communist who has had the the Federal Government buy
stakes in a chip maker.
Blue is really for the old phrase "True Blue" for the
Unionists in the 1800s Civil War. Current Republicans diluted
as they are by the MAGA should be Grey for the original American
Oath Breakers.
Progressive Democrats should have the color Fushia
which is red mixed with blue. I do not speak of the Democratic
Socialist Party organization because I would not permit
a political organization that does not respect the constitution.
So my future parties would be the Constitutional Democrats
and the Constitutional Conservative parties. I think Trump
has destroyed the value of the Republican label along with
his stooges in the White House and the legislative branch.
and
red are for Liberlas or Socialists - pick your country.
Personally, I always thought the color for "Republican" should be
yellow -- to match the broad yellow stripe running up their backs.
And The Donald's antics have done /nothing/ to suggest otherwise.
And he has ruined the economy again with 50% tariffs on Canada which
will be reciprocated. What does the USA make that people will
be willing to pay 50% more for it in Canada?
Trump may or may not be Putin toy or Kim's pal but he acts like
a man paid to destroy the USA. He needs a grey uniform with broad
yellow stripes to wear in a "steel bar hotel".
But I am a hot-head banned from posting on Daily Kos.
In article <qh5m8llk208blch2rcfd5l73hsshg6kma8@4ax.com>,already
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 12:16:26 -0700, BobbieSellers >><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 8/22/26 09:12, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:50:12 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
(The Doctor) wrote:
<snippo>
"red for republicand and blue for democrats" is confusing.
Recently, it was revealed here that it was chosen (Blue having
been taken by Democrats) because it begins with "R", as does
"Republican".
Such is the seriousness with which this was taken.
In most other conutries, blue is for conservative
The corporatist democrats are quite conservative much
more so than the paid off by Corporations and oligarchs Republicans. >>>Trump is a communist who has had the the Federal Government buy
stakes in a chip maker.
Blue is really for the old phrase "True Blue" for the
Unionists in the 1800s Civil War. Current Republicans diluted
as they are by the MAGA should be Grey for the original American
Oath Breakers.
Progressive Democrats should have the color Fushia
which is red mixed with blue. I do not speak of the Democratic
Socialist Party organization because I would not permit
a political organization that does not respect the constitution.
So my future parties would be the Constitutional Democrats
and the Constitutional Conservative parties. I think Trump
has destroyed the value of the Republican label along with
his stooges in the White House and the legislative branch.
and
red are for Liberlas or Socialists - pick your country.
Personally, I always thought the color for "Republican" should be
yellow -- to match the broad yellow stripe running up their backs.
And The Donald's antics have done /nothing/ to suggest otherwise.
And he has ruined the economy again with 50% tariffs on Canada which >>>will be reciprocated. What does the USA make that people will
be willing to pay 50% more for it in Canada?
Trump may or may not be Putin toy or Kim's pal but he acts like
a man paid to destroy the USA. He needs a grey uniform with broad
yellow stripes to wear in a "steel bar hotel".
But I am a hot-head banned from posting on Daily Kos.
When the Great Recession hit, I "knew" the real cause: the Republicans
were trying to fulfill the Contract on America they had accepted back
in th 90s. Trump could be understood as their 2nd attempt, albeit not
a particularly serious one.
The Contract on America was, of course, spun as the Contract With
America. But that's JARL (Just Another Republican Lie), barely worth >>mentioning.
The /real/ question is: who did they take it out /with/? Who do they
expect to pay them when they finally manage to destroy America?
Hey, I've often said that there are wing-nuts on all sides. I never
said I wasn't one of them.
FYI there is econoic war between Canada and the USA.
FYI there is econoic war between Canada and the USA.
The Doctor wrote:
Try that in English, shit for brains.
FYI there is econoic˙ war between Canada and the USA.
Just do not feed the pedophile.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 169:31:26 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 82,695 |