Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Chris H on 9 Apr 2010 10:37 In message <17cur5lidddvlc4gb7km725sboaan5c16s(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:31:19 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >>>>>>And to most people images of Catholic nature are closely related to >>>>>>pedophila (even in your own parish, Tony) which was the original >>>>>>comment >>>>> >>>>>That's one of your typical "most people" bullshit statements. Most >>>>>people have no such feelings about a photograph of a Catholic church >>>>>or scene. "Most people", in this case, includes you and maybe six >>>>>other wingnuts. At least three of them post here. >>>>> >>>>>It's interesting to see your defense of pornography, though. It >>>>>provides an indication of where you get your jollies. >>>> >>>>You really are a sad person. And in denial.... >>>> >>>>Turn on the TV news... There are thousands of people who have come >>>>forward about the abuse within the Catholic church. Not to mention the >>>>several government enquires in several countries. So that is "me and >>>>maybe six wingnuts" ? >>> >>>The you and six wingnuts, as I clearly stated, are the total number of >>>people who see anything pornographic about a photograph of a Catholic >>>church. >> >>Never said it was pornographic. > >Right. My error. You said images of Catholic nature are closely >related to "pedophila" [sic]. Yes to many thousands of people. They symbols are certainly associated with pedophile. I understand from the news today the Pope is apologising to Ireland... the whole country for what his priests go up to. Due to the recent report it looks like there will be many prosecutions. The question is apart from those who did the physical abuse how many who helped cover it up will be indicted. > I guess you don't feel that images >relating to pedophilia are pornographic, You "guess"? Depends on the images and how you define peadohilia and pornography. Much of it depends on context on a case by case basis > but a photograph of a >building can be related to pedophilia. Defiantly > That doesn't make you a >wingnut, does it? Not at all it just shows that you are brainwashed into denial about the Catholic church. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: tony cooper on 9 Apr 2010 11:24 On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:37:59 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <17cur5lidddvlc4gb7km725sboaan5c16s(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:31:19 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>And to most people images of Catholic nature are closely related to >>>>>>>pedophila (even in your own parish, Tony) which was the original >>>>>>>comment >>>>>> >>>>>>That's one of your typical "most people" bullshit statements. Most >>>>>>people have no such feelings about a photograph of a Catholic church >>>>>>or scene. "Most people", in this case, includes you and maybe six >>>>>>other wingnuts. At least three of them post here. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's interesting to see your defense of pornography, though. It >>>>>>provides an indication of where you get your jollies. >>>>> >>>>>You really are a sad person. And in denial.... >>>>> >>>>>Turn on the TV news... There are thousands of people who have come >>>>>forward about the abuse within the Catholic church. Not to mention the >>>>>several government enquires in several countries. So that is "me and >>>>>maybe six wingnuts" ? >>>> >>>>The you and six wingnuts, as I clearly stated, are the total number of >>>>people who see anything pornographic about a photograph of a Catholic >>>>church. >>> >>>Never said it was pornographic. >> >>Right. My error. You said images of Catholic nature are closely >>related to "pedophila" [sic]. > >Yes to many thousands of people. They symbols are certainly associated >with pedophile. You're a busy man with taking all of those polls on how people react to photographs of church buildings and other subjects related to the Catholic church. How much time did it take you to personally interview thousands of people? >> I guess you don't feel that images >>relating to pedophilia are pornographic, > >You "guess"? Depends on the images and how you define peadohilia and >pornography. Much of it depends on context on a case by case basis So you feel that certain images representing pedophilia may not be pornographic based on the context. Is that right? I'd ask you elaborate on that and explain what kind of context would make a photo representing pedophilia less than pornographic, but it might be scary to see how your mind works. > >> but a photograph of a >>building can be related to pedophilia. > >Defiantly "Defiantly", hunh? Buildings in which defiant "peadohilia" goes on. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: James Nagler on 9 Apr 2010 11:27 On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:47:08 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <ebaur5hbr2v490lfc25elv3eqbls932q1c(a)4ax.com>, James Nagler ><jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> writes >>On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:05:06 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> >>>In message <4bbf211c$0$1862$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. >>><contact(a)this.ng> writes >>>> >>>>A majority is not necessarily correct, but in this case your minority of one >>>>is certainly out of line. >>> >>>OK.. So on a point of English definition the Oxford English Dictionary >>>is out of line... >> >>It is. At least it is and has been for the last 10 years. Go back to the >>digital OED v2 and look up the definition for Pagan. It is complete with >>full and unbiased etymology. Then look it up in OED v3, it only says, "One >>who does not worship The One True God." and that is all it says. > >I agree. a Pagan is one who >>not worship The One True God. > >However it does not define who The One True God is. As far as I know >*EVERY* Monotheist religion KNOWS ABSOLUTELY they are the only one who >believe in The One True God..... (and all the others are false) I could look again by reinstalling v3, but it might have even said "The ONE TRUE Christian God." I distinctly remember some misused all-caps emphasis too. I didn't type it that way in my last reply because I don't remember it verbatim. After having known the full definition from OED v2, I was in awe and disgust over how much they truncated the true meaning of the word into that simplistic and biased middle-east nonsense in OED v3. When checking other religiously used words, they too had all been edited greatly in v3. Who else but christians would destroy knowledge yet again to support their imaginary cause. Their "Dark Ages" values represented again in brief in the present-day OED. > >>Self-serving biased and proselytizing christians have been editing the OED >>relentlessly for the last 10 years or more. > >Then there is a real problem. However I doubt that is the case. > >>It is no longer a valid >>reference source and should never be cited as such. > >I would agree with you. However I can't see the OED getting religious. >It is more likely some one has hacked the web site. > >I was using the printed OED I have here... some years ago there was a >special offer on the full OED and I went mad and got one. A lovely >book(s)to use. As you say it has the full etymology. Even for the >(godless :-) pagans. > >Actually the etymology for them is fascinating. > > >BTW do you have alink to the OED pages you were looking at? I don't use >(didn't know) there was an on line version. No. I compared the CD (DVD for v3?) versions that I have here. So these were not "hacked" pages online. I will keep v2 running as long as possible (presently not reinstalled), it's difficult to get it to work with Win XP but can be done with some tweaking and installing in safe-mode. However v3 has been relegated to the fiction section. Since you have access to the full etymology of "Pagan" then you see how much it has been misused. "Those who would not enroll in a militant christian army" were called Pagan. Those who refused to make human sacrifices of their neighbors and families to a christian god by not taking-up christian swords against their own. It is also interesting to note that "Heathen" comes from "those who lived on the Heath", where the heather grows, living amongst the wildflowers. Both words' etymologies took on an "evil" connotation by christians using the terms pejoratively. They cannot envision their heaven unless they can sacrifice others into their imaginary hell. One cannot exist without the other in their perversely imagined and unnatural dichotomies. Not too different than emotionally insecure capitalists who will call poorer people "hillbillies" and "hicks" so they can try to feel better about their self-serving materialistic greed and far less idyllic lives. All the while doing all they can to keep others poor so they themselves can feel rich.
From: Chris H on 9 Apr 2010 11:46 In message <nsgur5hvk5t0qs2deidk2te5b04aqhmogc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >> >>Yes to many thousands of people. They symbols are certainly associated >>with pedophile. > >You're a busy man with taking all of those polls on how people react >to photographs of church buildings and other subjects related to the >Catholic church. How much time did it take you to personally >interview thousands of people? You really are stupid... The BBC was talking about it to day on the news. There are thousands of people (UK and Ireland never mind the rest of the world) who are currently talking about their abuse and trying to get something done about it. They associate images of the RC Church with child abuse. I would not expect you to understand as you are in denial and your family supports a Parish Church that supports peadohiples >>> I guess you don't feel that images >>>relating to pedophilia are pornographic, >> >>You "guess"? Depends on the images and how you define peadohilia and >>pornography. Much of it depends on context on a case by case basis > >So you feel that certain images representing pedophilia may not be >pornographic based on the context. Is that right? No. Again you are trying to be simplistic and equivocal to twist the reality that you support a church that support pedophiles. >I'd ask you elaborate on that and explain what kind of context would >make a photo representing pedophilia less than pornographic, but it >might be scary to see how your mind works. No... You can't handle reality. We have seen how you twist and turn to be anti Pedophilia but send your children to a Church that supports pedophiles. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 9 Apr 2010 11:55
In message <p2gur5lt6ffa49n6ia31ruauqhc4r9kuom(a)4ax.com>, James Nagler <jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> writes >On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:47:08 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > >>In message <ebaur5hbr2v490lfc25elv3eqbls932q1c(a)4ax.com>, James Nagler >><jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> writes >>>On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:05:06 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>> >>>>In message <4bbf211c$0$1862$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. >>>><contact(a)this.ng> writes >>>>> >>>>>A majority is not necessarily correct, but in this case your >>>>>minority of one >>>>>is certainly out of line. >>>> >>>>OK.. So on a point of English definition the Oxford English Dictionary >>>>is out of line... >>> >>>It is. At least it is and has been for the last 10 years. Go back to the >>>digital OED v2 and look up the definition for Pagan. It is complete with >>>full and unbiased etymology. Then look it up in OED v3, it only says, "One >>>who does not worship The One True God." and that is all it says. >> >>I agree. a Pagan is one who >>>not worship The One True God. >> >>However it does not define who The One True God is. As far as I know >>*EVERY* Monotheist religion KNOWS ABSOLUTELY they are the only one who >>believe in The One True God..... (and all the others are false) > >I could look again by reinstalling v3, but it might have even said "The ONE >TRUE Christian God." I distinctly remember some misused all-caps emphasis >too. I didn't type it that way in my last reply because I don't remember it >verbatim. Fair enough. >After having known the full definition from OED v2, I was in awe >and disgust over how much they truncated the true meaning of the word into >that simplistic and biased middle-east nonsense in OED v3. When checking >other religiously used words, they too had all been edited greatly in v3. >Who else but christians would destroy knowledge yet again to support their >imaginary cause. Their "Dark Ages" values represented again in brief in the >present-day OED. It sounds like a pro Christian mob have hacked it. I would email OED and see what they say. It sound VERY unlike the OED. >>BTW do you have alink to the OED pages you were looking at? I don't use >>(didn't know) there was an on line version. > >No. I compared the CD (DVD for v3?) versions that I have here. So these >were not "hacked" pages online. Then that is appalling! The OED seems to have lost it's way. >Since you have access to the full etymology of "Pagan" then you see how >much it has been misused. Well I only have the printed version and it is the version before the current one. (Probably V2 as the entry below is the one I have > "Those who would not enroll in a militant >christian army" were called Pagan. Those who refused to make human >sacrifices of their neighbors and families to a christian god by not >taking-up christian swords against their own. It is also interesting to >note that "Heathen" comes from "those who lived on the Heath", where the >heather grows, living amongst the wildflowers. Both words' etymologies took >on an "evil" connotation by christians using the terms pejoratively. They >cannot envision their heaven unless they can sacrifice others into their >imaginary hell. One cannot exist without the other in their perversely >imagined and unnatural dichotomies. I agree. And that is what is in my OED I will have to look at a current OED and see how far it has gone. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |