-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> An apologist for slavery and . . . You may think what you want, but do you
> realize your rationalzations are inhumane.
No I don't... As a matter of fact, if you could read (and understand what you
read), I have repeatedly said that I do not advocate the enslavement of anyone. I
do not personally approve of slavery. Seems you would finally get that through
your head.
> Your contention that owning people, because of interpretations of scripture, is
> a valid human endeavour is ill-founded.
A "valid endeaver?" Of course its a "valid endeavor." Murder is a "valid
endeavor," if it accomplishes the perpetrator's goal. That doesn't make it a
"desirable" activity in which to engage one's self.
> Slavery is wrong, is known by the fact of the actions of slavery, not by any
> vaunted scribblings.
Is it "wrong" because YOU say its wrong? Or because an amendment to the
Constitution says its wrong? What makes an action "wrong?" Your bemuddled
"logic" -- if such it could be called -- is "X (and action) is wrong because the
action of X is wrong." I fear you'll have to improve before your "argument" is
convincing to anyone who can string a group of words together and form a logical
statement.
> Lord, have mercy, the sufferrings from arrogannce saited by piety.
Funny... I was just thinking the same thing...
> A side-kick , someone to kick around.
No... Someone to "kick around with." A "pard," a "buddy." Or if you prefer the
definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:
side·kick (sºd“k¹k”) n. Slang. A close companion or comrade.
Hardly, "someone to kick around." Your own arrogance and accusatory manner is
amazing!
> Embarrased? Shucks, wonder what your side-kick had to endure.
Probably embarassment... Frustration... Anger... Resentment.. At least that's what
I would have felt.. However, I was no more at fault in that situation than YOU
were (assuming you were even alive at the time, and considering the rather
juvenile nature of your posts, I have my doubts).
> The social rules were racist.
Of course they were.... Do you think anyone is denying that? Would you say that
there are NO racist tendencies in yourself? Or that racism is to this day as
rampant or more than ever before? Or that minorities are not themselves racists?
> Valid in the eyes of Jesus aka The Christ?
Why should it matter? You put no stock in the Bible anyway, and I have been
accused of "religious pandering." But then, I have noted a "slight" double
standard from you in other issues too. If you wish to 'ban' the use of the bible
in determining whether something is "right" or "wrong," then don't use it in YOUR
arguments. If you do want to use it, you're in a heap o' trouble, boy.... and I
look forward to the debate.
> Like I said, I was raised in the South, home of gentlemen/women and racism
> fostered by an illegal social and political system.
Again... You seem to confuse "what you believe" with what is actually true. I
think, if you are speaking of some time prior to the 1960's, racism (or
discrimination based on race) was LEGAL. If not, cite your references.
Documentation is important.
> The seperate facilities has stopped, why? Because it was wrong.
No... because it was declared illegal, and some pretty hefty fines and penalties
might be slapped on those who insisted on continuing the practice.
> Ladies couldn't even vote untill this century.
I'm not so sure its a good idea now... But that's another topic altogether.
> Slavery comes in many forms. We shall overcome.
Oh.... Are YOU a slave? If so, I guess you DO have a unique perspective from
which to speak.. Pardon me... I didn't realize I was talking to one with personal
experience in that "peculiar institution."
> You write me personally and complain about this post and this person and what
> are the rules.
I did that rather than "clutter up" the list... I thought it was a considerate
thing to do. If you'd rather, I can point out the obvious infractions of others
(regarding the so-called "rules") in the clear.
> Yeah, there are rules and rule makers and rulers and yardsticks and junk-yard
> dogs.
I agree.... I have personally witnessed actual critters such as you mention...
However, I don't see the connection with the discussion at hand. Its like saying
"Yeah, there is earth, wind, fire, and water." Not a particularly enlightened
argument.
> I ain'y yo mamma and if ya want a cop call 911.
Is that somewhere in the rules? Maybe I have a truncated list...
> Actions begat reactions and so forth.
I've noticed... but I wasn't the first.. I read about this fellow named
"Newton.."... ever heard of him?
> Chill . . .
I'm cool! I'm cool...
> Om
> K
Might I ask a personal question? What does "Om" mean? Is it something like "YOS"
for "your obedient servant?" I've been meaning to ask you.
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
