Subj : Rawley's Incessant Whine To : Ralph Zetter From : Joseph Voigt Date : Thu Nov 02 2000 08:58 am Thursday November 02 2000 07:14, RALPH ZETTER wrote to JOSEPH VOIGT: >> RZ> I've only been peeking in just a bit here, but it does seem >> RZ> that Todd likes to grab the bull by the horns, doesn't he? I'd >> RZ> have to agree though with your opinion of Mr. Voigt, >> >> You are a hateful little person, aren't you? By agreeing with >> Constance's opinion of me as being a pervert, you have also >> effectively LABELLED me as RZ> Huh? Man, what a dumbass you are. Just look at yourself, Ralph. I ask you a simple question where a "yes" or "no" should suffice and you fly off the handle (you didn't answer the question, BTW). Then you resort to name-calling, labelling me a "dumbass". You're no better than Todd or Constance. RZ> I don't even know you and already I don't like you. Do you dislike everyone you don't know? RZ> I've read some of your posts, both here and in the Matzdobre echo, RZ> and you are quite fond of being vile and dirty. Not in this echo, I haven't been. Todd started the name-calling when he called me an INSANE PERVERT and then Constance dragged in Matzdobre and began her onslaught of name-calling as well. Why don't you be honest with yourself? This isn't the Matzdobre echo and I had been rational here all along until Constance started her character attacks against me merely because I post in Matzdobre. It's people like you that make me sick. RZ> I read your reply to Todd's stuff about schools teaching kids RZ> fisting, and your only reply was that it was nice to see someone RZ> rebel against whatever, not even mentioned that to teach kids that RZ> stuff in school is perverted. So yeah, your message looked perverted. You didn't even understand the context. Had you read the earlier exchange it might have been clearer to you. I made no commentary on what was being taught by anyone. I commented on the school board for standing up to whatever group it was. My message was NOT perverted and you know it. RZ> I've gone back through the messages here and have read many of the RZ> posts to get a feel for everyone here. At every moment you act like a RZ> spoiled brat who is trying to stretch stuff and win, it's like you RZ> have a small penis and are trying to make up for it or something. Just look at yourself, Ralph. Now you are comparing penises? What's the matter with you? Act like a spoiled brat? I don't stretch anything to win anything. I use reasoned argument. RZ> If a person doesn't agree with Todd or whoever, then they can RZ> disagree and explain why they think he, Constance, or whoever, is RZ> wrong. That's what I HAD been doing. THEY launched this character attack crusade, Ralph. I certainly didn't. RZ> But you go to such stupid lengths, showing obvious hostility, you RZ> make yourself look just plain dumb. Just look at yourself. Just plain dumb? This is a philosophy echo and I had been presenting rational argument all along, with tartness thrown in from time to time for good measure. That is my style here. Just plain dumb?? Are you being deliberately ignorant or do you have to work at it? RZ> You are someone to be laughed at. HAHAHAHA. You are being silly. >> such. You haven't a clue about ANY sexual behavior I engage in. >> Here's a clue for you: A pervert is one who ENGAGES in deviant >> sexual behavior. By your somehow thinking I -AM- one tells me a lot >> about yourself. First, unlike Constance, I do NOT consider normal >> sexual behavior (as has already been addressed here) to be >> perversion. Secondly, you have no clue about ANY sexual behavior I >> may or may not engage in. Ergo, your LABELLING me a pervert merely >> because you hold fearful prejudices about sexuality and other people >> tells me you need to think about some of those opinions of yours and >> what makes some of your thinking rather vile. matzobre. It is quite >> the little vulgar hatefest there, No, it isn't. You need to learn >> about what hate IS. RZ> I see it in your words. So, my above is accurate then? >> RZ> They all sound like a bunch of babies who follow you around and >> RZ> yell things at you because they themselves are weak. Every last >> RZ> one of them. >> >> You didn't even notice, but you just included Todd in that little >> opinion of yours, as he posts there rather frequently. You also >> included Constance by association, as she is an ardent reader of the >> echo. She actually thrills in her enjoyment of it. But, now to >> philosophy. How is it you make the leap that those who post there >> are weak? Please elaborate. This should be interesting. RZ> No, I did not include Todd. So you lied then? RZ> As I told him, I took him up on his RZ> challenge to see his messages over there. I went through pages and RZ> pages and pages of crap from morons like you, and I only saw a small RZ> tiny percentage of posts made by Todd here and there. So, everyone who posts there are morons then? Just look at how you label rational, intelligent people like that. Why do you call people morons when they simply aren't? RZ> None of his RZ> posts had the kind of dumbass foolishness that you did. Now it's "dumbass foolishness" with you? My posting there certainly doesn't make me a dumbass. I've already explained why I post there. RZ> I know we all RZ> cuss every now and then, but what does it say about you people when RZ> you log on every day or so for the specific purpose of calling this RZ> Chuck person names? I don't log on anywhere. As SysOp here, I type directly from my mail reader and toss the messages via direct FTP link. But, it says I enjoy knocking Chuck around because he is a known liar, dishonest as hell, has threatened others with lawsuits, and on and on. RZ> You only make yourselves seem even worse that RZ> he is, because you have the need to act like a kiddie. What a loser. Act like a kiddie?? A loser?? Are you even capable of debate, or are you only good for name-calling? Here, like Todd and Constance, you attack me with name-calling and then wonder about MY behavior in Matzdobre??! You don't see just how hypocritical you are? >> RZ> One big pig pen you might say. :-) >> >> As Todd Henson wallows around there, are you now LABELLING him a >> pig? RZ> No, but I am calling you one, because the echo is full of your slop. Now you're calling me a PIG? What's the matter with you? This is NOT the Matzdobre echo! >> RZ> I suppose Joseph is an atheist. >> >> Suppose all you want. But I'm a little more honest than you, else >> I'd suppose you are Celtic Scientologist. RZ> No. I say you are. >> RZ> I might want to bring up Buddhism, but I don't want to get into >> RZ> a long drawn out debate on Buddhism against the Bible, because >> RZ> I know Christians don't have much room for other religions. >> >> And that is my whole point. This is a philosophy echo and the >> tendency for fundamental xians to somehow think it is an exclusive >> abode for xianity is what I find absurd and continue to address. I >> have a great deal of respect for the wisdom of Zen Buddhism, but I >> oppose even having that LABEL applied to myself. Zen Buddhism is >> simply more reasonable and enriching than is judeoxianism is all. >> You need to work on those opinionated LABELS of yours. RZ> Looks like people like you are trying to take over the echo and turn RZ> it into some antiChristian hate camp. I have a lot of disagreements RZ> with religion, but it says something bad about you if you feel the RZ> need to go on and rant about it. You're a small little person inside. Nope, I'm only pointing out the flawed arguments that fundy xians present as being TRUE. I address their arguments to point out where the flaws are. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that the fundy xians seem to think they have a hold on this echo and wish to thwart all other discussion? But now you think I'm bad and a little person? You're not very bright are you? Just out of curiousity, how old are you? >> >> I think Voigt's response substantiated Henson's charge. Perhaps >> >> it comes down to what one believes is the function of sex and >> >> the meaning of "perverse." This is what Voigt wrote: >> >> RZ> I feel the same, but for someone who says he's a Christian, >> RZ> that response seemed a wee bit harsh, dontcha think? >> >> You have it all wrong, Ralph. I never said I was a Christian. But >> for you to RZ> I was referring to Todd. >> feel that I am a pervert when you know ZERO about ANY sexual >> behavior of mine, RZ> I know what you said ABOUT perversion, and you didn't seem to have a RZ> problem with it. Seem? I never said anything at all about how I feel about perversion. As I fall into the norm of sexual behavior, I am not a pervert, and see no reason to address issues about sexual perversion anyway. >> tells me you are deliberately dishonest in calling me something I >> simply am RZ> The only liar here is you, little man. You're lying, Ralph. Still name-calling, I see. >> not. How terribly sad to form such a vile opinion and name call >> with absolutely no basis. Now, work on those hateful opinions you >> have of others RZ> Oh, you do like to put on a show, don't you? I'm not putting on ANY show. I am merely defending my character from the onslaught of personal attacks by you, Henson and Rawley. Prior to that I was arguing per this echo the arguments as presented. >> and maybe you can actually debate philosophy with an open mind. RZ> You need to look up the word "hypocrite". Yes, please do. Then ask yourself if all your name-calling is warranted. Now, has your little penis grown a little? Please rethink why you feel the need to attack others who don't share your views of reality. Are you going to call me a PERVERT now too? .... Unicorns aren't nearly as mythical as virgins. --- FastEcho 1.46 (reg) * Origin: The Danse - Where Norse Gods Ponder Their Navels (1:387/638) .