Firestarter

You obviously don't have the faintest idea what I was talking about.

The hell with Harpoons; we should give them half a dozen Spirits.

You don't. "Trust" me.

Excellent column by Mark Steyn on the "scandal," even though it is extremely critical of the CIA.

And wrong. "Condom use rates have also markedly increased in Uganda, especially in non-regular sexual relationships. Between 1995 and 1998, there was no significant decline in the proportion (about 10%) of people reporting having at least one non-regular sexual partner in the last 12 months; however, the proportion of people using a condom in the last sexual encounter with a non-regular sexual partner in the last 12 months more than doubled from 33% in 1995 to 50.7% in 1998." - UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs And no, Uganda doesn't have the lowest rate of HIV infection in Africa either. Senegal's is something like one-tenth of Uganda's, and some other west African countries are lower still. YPoV, this is getting to be a habit. You seem to be a halfway decent poster, you're unfailingly civil, and you always address the subject at hand concisely and substantively. However, any figures, evidence, or data you offer are usually false. I'm starting to instinctively question practically everything you say, because I don't know if you're deliberately advancing questionable or incorrect data in order to further your own arguments, or if you really don't know that what you're saying is simply not true. Frankly, if at this point you told me that there's a lot of oil in Saudi Arabia, I'd call the DoE and check the figures. Unless you're happy to reduce your credibility with every post, I suggest you do some basic research before making false assertions. Or become a better liar.

This appears to be entirely false. "In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians 'derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate.' (15.44) Two questions arise concerning this passage: Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation? Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him? Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists. The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos." Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity." - Historicity of Jesus (emphases added)

Don't flatter yourself. You still don't get it. Or you do get it, but you find that pretending you don't and willfully misinterpreting what I said lets you whine more loudly and more shrilly. As I stated then: (emphases added) Click here to read the original thread. (emphasis added) Actually, since your complaint was "shot down" as the hysterical, illiterate, baseless crap it was, you replied 11 more times in that thread. And, let us note, in your first reply after you were rejected, you asked for the thread to be closed so you could cling to whatever ragged shreds of dignity you still possessed. I objected, on the grounds that if you couldn't be a good example, you could at least serve as a horrible warning. Evidently someone agreed, because the thread remained open. Blow your nose and stop sniffling, you disgusting little wretch. Which rule was violated? - by which post? - and how? Explain that before you sink any deeper into your pathetic psychodrama.

NB: all boldface in the quotations found in my previous post is my own.

Possibly so. That being the case, let's clear up yours. No? "Jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims. The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe. Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad... the second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth. Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632... Jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males. Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude. Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era. Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent... It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality." - What is Jihad? "The trouble with this accumulated wisdom of the scholars is simple to state. It suggests that Osama bin Laden had no idea what he was saying when he declared jihad on the United States several years ago and then repeatedly murdered Americans in Somalia, at the U.S. embassies in East Africa, in the port of Aden, and then on September 11, 2001. It implies that organizations with the word "jihad" in their titles, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden's own "International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusade[rs]," are grossly misnamed. And what about all the Muslims waging violent and aggressive jihads, under that very name and at this very moment, in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Ambon, and other places around the world? Have they not heard that jihad is a matter of controlling one's anger? But of course it is bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists. More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history... Jihad was no abstract obligation through the centuries, but a key aspect of Muslim life... The second variant, usually associated with Sufis, or Muslim mystics, was the doctrine customarily translated as "greater jihad" but perhaps more usefully termed "higher jihad." This Sufi variant invokes allegorical modes of interpretation to turn jihad's literal meaning of armed conflict upside-down, calling instead for a withdrawal from the world to struggle against one's baser instincts in pursuit of numinous awareness and spiritual depth. But as Rudolph Peters notes in his authoritative Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (1995), this interpretation was "hardly touched upon" in premodern legal writings on jihad. In the vast majority of premodern cases, then, jihad signified one thing only: armed action versus non-Muslims... It is an intellectual scandal that, since September 11, 2001, scholars at American universities have repeatedly and all but unanimously issued public statements that avoid or whitewash the primary meaning of jihad in Islamic law and Muslim history. It is quite as if historians of medieval Europe were to deny that the word "crusade" ever had martial overtones, instead pointing to such terms as "crusade on hunger" or "crusade against drugs" to demonstrate that the term signifies an effort to improve society." - Jihad and the Professors "The students [at a private academy in Brooklyn] stated point-blank that they would not fight for America against a fellow Muslim, denied that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, and criticized the United States for always opposing Muslims... As to whether suicide bombers would go to Paradise, the students said they earnestly hoped so. 'I mean, they're doing it for a good cause,' one boy explained. 'I pray that they go to Paradise,' another said. Not only that, but one student said, 'I think we'd all probably do the same.'" - My Name is Adolf "South African Muslim theologian, Farid Esack, spoke bluntly about the Muslim reaction to 9/11. Most Muslims in the world rejoiced on 9/11, he said, because from their viewpoint the bully on the block was finally getting a beating. People in the U.S. wanted to believe that most Muslims were peace-loving, so they asked questions about Islam to allay their own fears, not to really understand what had happened." - CTA True. But people culturally associated with an evil religion can still produce works of beauty (the Mezquita de Cordoba), profound intellectual significance (al-Khwarizmi's concept of zero), and tolerance (the theological debates between Christians, Hindoos, and Moslems sponsored by Akbar the Great). Ignoring the evil is as foolish as ignoring the contributions, and a thousand times more dangerous.

Never mind the rhetoric; it's a silly argument. The rule of law intrinsically necessary to democracy and capitalism is no more "natural" than communism.

No, here are your exact words: Now, first of all, I'm not your "sweet dear." Take your inane patronisation and stuff it in your shoe. Second, after pronouncing that the Church's position is "invalid" because parishioners disagree, yes, you have indeed proved yourself ignorant of basic theology. Third, one more time, my point was that the Church is spouting unscientific bullshit motivated by dogma and dressed up to look scientifically plausible to the ignorant, without any concern for human suffering and human lives - and that this is evil and the Church is wrong. Your brilliant explanation was that they take this position because they believe it's right. Well la de fucking da, I'm overjoyed we have you around to make shit like that ever so crystal clear. Your post was meaningless and farcically unsubstantive. No, I don't always have to be right, but it'll take a hell of a lot more than your pointless tripe to prove me wrong. Swallow your pride and shut your mouth.

So just what was your point again? That the people who believe these things believe in them? - that not all Catholics agree? - and that you're completely ignorant of your own catechisms? Wow, that's fucking profound. I'm glad you decided to stop by and enlighten us with your sage wisdom, Stephen Joseph.

Not from what I've seen.

Say what? How do you figure? Not my words, his. He thought we shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI because of a boat and Kosovo should have just stayed a "Regional dispute" or something like that. Ahhh, okay. That does sound a lot more like him than you. <g>

A failure?

Yep. I don't remember that. In which thread? Say what? How do you figure?

Or World War II.

I like this one. "Come Join the Mighty Canadian Navy... Now Featuring a Boat!"

Everyone's saying that, and trying to analyse how much it will affect him and where, but what I find more interesting than all the analyses is the fact that everyone believes they will be relevant - ie, that Schwarzenegger really will cut spending and snub special interests. It's been a long time since I saw such a strong and inadvertent display of faith in any politician. I hope he doesn't disappoint y'all.

That was fucking hilarious, and oh so true. Earlier today, I found I'd almost chainsmoked my way through a full pack less than an hour after I first read this, out of pure nervousness that he WOULDN'T die yet again. That insufferable piece of shit seems to have a billion lives.

Read this earlier, but it's absolutely fascinating. I don't know what kind of impact this will have on future elections, though, because Davis was such an aberrantly godawful governor and Schwarzenegger was such an aberrantly likeable and famous candidate. Anyway, thanks for posting it.

As I have already stated, beliefs, however strong, are not immune to criticism. SpiderPoet himself freely and deliberately brings his beliefs into the debate. In fact, his beliefs usually form the crux of his arguments. As such they are central to any argument brought forward against him. Arguing against science through one's faith is not only bad science and poor logic, it is worse theology. Irrelevant. My beliefs and opinions have nothing to do with my arguments. Evidence and its analysis do.

True. I just always remembered that because when I read it, I didn't see how it could possibly be true. From what little I dimly remember, though, the solution to the crime in question turned on that one "fact" (AFAIK it was only used in one story) and so I felt it was cheating. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I have a vague recollection of an outdoor scene and him hurrying Watson along at some point but I could be completely off.

I think that's just about enough. Possibly. Personally, I think you're a lot closer to a ban.

Rather than wallowing in it as you do, I suppose. Not really a more attractive image. Now we get to the crux of it, if you'll excuse the expression. You're searching for evidence to prove your preconceived notions, your religious beliefs, your ideology correct. You're not after the truth. Thank you; I think that says it all.