Proof positive that Britons are smarter than us Yanks

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

>>Sorry, I'm British, and the comment was rather tongue in cheek to see what
>>the reaction would be
>
> My most sincere apologies...

Alot of people mistake me for an American, not many Brits are pro gun
ownership (including semi-auto's, or full auto's)

> Can you imagine the body count in the crossfire?

Depends how seriously people took their training.

> They say his mother only asked him to shoot up the town and get a loaf of
> bread. I know, not PC.....

he must have taken objection to buying bread considering he shot her.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dc7c94$0$21318$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>Sorry, I'm British, and the comment was rather tongue in cheek to see
>>>what the reaction would be
> >
>> My most sincere apologies...
>
> Alot of people mistake me for an American, not many Brits are pro gun
> ownership (including semi-auto's, or full auto's)
>
>> Can you imagine the body count in the crossfire?
>
> Depends how seriously people took their training.
>

Hmm I'm not sure I'd want all the dickhead chavs where I live to be able to
easily and legally get any gun they want and carry it everywhere 🙂 How
seriously do you think they would take any form of training in anything? I
wouldn't trust most of 'em to be able to take a dump without supervision.
The blood runs in the gutters at chucking out time every Friday and Saturday
night as it is and that's just the local pikeys using their fists etc.
Imagine the body count if they were drunk/stoned and armed with handguns 🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Mort <TZW> wrote:

> Hmm I'm not sure I'd want all the dickhead chavs where I live to be able to
> easily and legally get any gun they want and carry it everywhere 🙂 How
> seriously do you think they would take any form of training in anything? I
> wouldn't trust most of 'em to be able to take a dump without supervision.
> The blood runs in the gutters at chucking out time every Friday and Saturday
> night as it is and that's just the local pikeys using their fists etc.
> Imagine the body count if they were drunk/stoned and armed with handguns 🙂

Blimey, it almost sounds like you live around the corner from me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

>>Depends how seriously people took their training.
>
> Hmm I'm not sure I'd want all the dickhead chavs where I live to be able to
> easily and legally get any gun they want and carry it everywhere 🙂 How
> seriously do you think they would take any form of training in anything? I
> wouldn't trust most of 'em to be able to take a dump without supervision.
> The blood runs in the gutters at chucking out time every Friday and Saturday
> night as it is and that's just the local pikeys using their fists etc.
> Imagine the body count if they were drunk/stoned and armed with handguns 🙂
>
>

No training then no FAC. Period.

You pass a course aiming to teach use, cleaning of and more important
responsibility of and safe use of the weapon, you keep all weapons other
than those already currently allowed to take home in a gun club and you
only use weapons where authorised or where they can be used responsibily
with no risk to non-participants.

Break any of those rules and you lose your FAC for life and have a
permanent criminal charge on you.

Given those stipulations I doubt many chav's would get a FAC to begin with.

Though to be honest I dont know how realistic it is to expect a gun club
to be able to afford security to keep firearms on site, would you'd have
any ideas about that?

Old hackneyed cliche but given rights demands responsibility.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dd96e9$0$14259$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>Depends how seriously people took their training.
>>
>> Hmm I'm not sure I'd want all the dickhead chavs where I live to be able
>> to easily and legally get any gun they want and carry it everywhere 🙂
>> How seriously do you think they would take any form of training in
>> anything? I wouldn't trust most of 'em to be able to take a dump without
>> supervision.
>> The blood runs in the gutters at chucking out time every Friday and
>> Saturday night as it is and that's just the local pikeys using their
>> fists etc. Imagine the body count if they were drunk/stoned and armed
>> with handguns 🙂
>
> No training then no FAC. Period.
>
> You pass a course aiming to teach use, cleaning of and more important
> responsibility of and safe use of the weapon, you keep all weapons other
> than those already currently allowed to take home in a gun club and you
> only use weapons where authorised or where they can be used responsibily
> with no risk to non-participants.

Take a look at the fatality figures, they'll tell you exactly what the risk
is.

>
> Break any of those rules and you lose your FAC for life and have a
> permanent criminal charge on you.

Or you'll buy a gun off someone else....

>
> Given those stipulations I doubt many chav's would get a FAC to begin
> with.
>
> Though to be honest I dont know how realistic it is to expect a gun club
> to be able to afford security to keep firearms on site, would you'd have
> any ideas about that?
>
> Old hackneyed cliche but given rights demands responsibility.

Guns will be banned in the States within 10-20 years. Your constitution will
be changed. How do I know? Because Yanks are dropping dead left right and
centre, it's bloody obvious. It'll take a few more schools getting shot up,
but eventually even someone as stupid as Bush will realise that guns are
bad.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

>
> Take a look at the fatality figures, they'll tell you exactly what the risk
> is.

For which group ?

>>Break any of those rules and you lose your FAC for life and have a
>>permanent criminal charge on you.
>
>
> Or you'll buy a gun off someone else....
>

Which they may be able to do now anyway which would be as illegal now as
it would be under what I'm suggesting.

>>Given those stipulations I doubt many chav's would get a FAC to begin
>>with.
>>
>>Though to be honest I dont know how realistic it is to expect a gun club
>>to be able to afford security to keep firearms on site, would you'd have
>>any ideas about that?
>>
>>Old hackneyed cliche but given rights demands responsibility.
>
>
> Guns will be banned in the States within 10-20 years. Your constitution will
> be changed.

I told you before, I'm not American, I've never even been to America.

Guns may well be banned in the US in the future, since the US is
becoming more urbanised and seemingly less liberal as far as civil
liberties are concerned (eg authoritarian). However it will be a lot
harder to achieve this ignoble goal simply because changing the
constitution requires 3/4 agreement.

> How do I know?

I suspect it's not that you know, it's more than you hope given your
prejudiced views.

<snip the rest of the mindless ravings as not relevant to the discussion
he's trying to make>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

In reply to didgerman

> It'll take a few more schools getting shot up, but eventually even
> someone as stupid as Bush will realise that guns are bad.

While I generally agree with you, there's no way - no way at all that
this Bush person will realise something ... be disenchanted with all the
harmony of weaponry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Why do Yanks consider Yank an insult. You're Yanks, what's the problem? >>>>

we dont consider it an insult. its just that, I was able to tell the original
poster wasnt actually a fellow "yank" simply because having lived in a certain
place you tend to get a feel for the culture.I'm an american.
and americans do not refer to themselves as "yanks".it just doesnt happen.

we just happens we dont refer to ourselves that way.
I mean you just wont hear an american ever say,I'm proud to be a yank.
you will however find hundreds opon hundreds of people say i'm proud to be an
american.just the way it works out.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

if you think about it, science has failed on this topic.

Oh dear....>>>>>

Oh dear wont help you. after all, as I said, this world,most people still
believe in a deity of some sort. we have cast away illusions of a flat earth,or
say, earth is the center of the universe.

yet the belief in a deity is still very much alive from the hindu to the
christian to the islamic across the globe.atheism is a small minority.
science failed.if the the world can cast away flat earth assumptions via
science then science can be found lacking on the diety creating life topic.

We were talking about the UK right?>>>>>

Well some see the glass half full or half empty.thats up to you.

I however, dont believe a countrys general position falling in line with,"I
doubt there is a creator "as any proof of intellect.
now,had the report said british scientists debunked the God idea via scientific
means therefore they dont believe, then you have something . until then if you
want to be proud for not having an idea, then enjoy God free britain I say.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050107011547.21604.00002463@mb-m11.aol.com...
> if you think about it, science has failed on this topic.
>
> Oh dear....>>>>>
>
> Oh dear wont help you. after all, as I said, this world,most people still
> believe in a deity of some sort. we have cast away illusions of a flat
> earth,or
> say, earth is the center of the universe.
>
> yet the belief in a deity is still very much alive from the hindu to the
> christian to the islamic across the globe.atheism is a small minority.
> science failed.if the the world can cast away flat earth assumptions via
> science then science can be found lacking on the diety creating life
> topic.

I think any scientest would dismiss the idea of creation out of hand, it's
bunk.
Why do you keep saying science has failed? What do you mean by that? Science
has failed to prove god doesn't excist? That's a bloody Monty Python sketch
mate....
Darwin's theory is backed by an incredible amount of evidence, any sane
person cannot possibly believe in creation by diety. If you want to believe
in fairy stories bounced about by Romans trying to tame a restless
population go right ahead. Just remember that science has proven religion
wrong so many times it's embarrasing....

>
> We were talking about the UK right?>>>>>
>
> Well some see the glass half full or half empty.thats up to you.
>
> I however, dont believe a countrys general position falling in line
> with,"I
> doubt there is a creator "as any proof of intellect.
> now,had the report said british scientists debunked the God idea via
> scientific
> means therefore they dont believe, then you have something . until then if
> you
> want to be proud for not having an idea, then enjoy God free britain I
> say.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41ddae3e$0$14261$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> Take a look at the fatality figures, they'll tell you exactly what the
>> risk is.
>
> For which group ?

The living...?

>
>>>Break any of those rules and you lose your FAC for life and have a
>>>permanent criminal charge on you.
>>
>>
>> Or you'll buy a gun off someone else....
>>
>
> Which they may be able to do now anyway which would be as illegal now as
> it would be under what I'm suggesting.
>
>>>Given those stipulations I doubt many chav's would get a FAC to begin
>>>with.
>>>
>>>Though to be honest I dont know how realistic it is to expect a gun club
>>>to be able to afford security to keep firearms on site, would you'd have
>>>any ideas about that?
>>>
>>>Old hackneyed cliche but given rights demands responsibility.
>>
>>
>> Guns will be banned in the States within 10-20 years. Your constitution
>> will be changed.
>
> I told you before, I'm not American, I've never even been to America.
>
> Guns may well be banned in the US in the future, since the US is becoming
> more urbanised and seemingly less liberal as far as civil liberties are
> concerned (eg authoritarian). However it will be a lot harder to achieve
> this ignoble goal simply because changing the constitution requires 3/4
> agreement.
>
>> How do I know?
>
> I suspect it's not that you know, it's more than you hope given your
> prejudiced views.
>

It's not me that's hoping, it's the tens of thousands of yanks that get
gunned down for no reason.
Eventually it will sink in and you'll ban guns, maybe even chase after
illegal ones, you'll get there, of that there is no doubt.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dd96e9$0$14259$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>Depends how seriously people took their training.
>>
>> Hmm I'm not sure I'd want all the dickhead chavs where I live to be able
>> to easily and legally get any gun they want and carry it everywhere 🙂
>> How seriously do you think they would take any form of training in
>> anything? I wouldn't trust most of 'em to be able to take a dump without
>> supervision.
>> The blood runs in the gutters at chucking out time every Friday and
>> Saturday night as it is and that's just the local pikeys using their
>> fists etc. Imagine the body count if they were drunk/stoned and armed
>> with handguns 🙂
>
> No training then no FAC. Period.
>

OK so the ~50,000 or so people who had handguns prior to 1997 would probably
re-apply (less than 1 in 1000 of the UK population). Hardly likely to have a
measureable effect one way or another on any crime stats. Anyway who would
take them through the compulsory training? The Police? The Army? They have
their hands full already. How long do you think it would take to put 50,000
people through the required training?
Even if British culture was to change enough to put through the necessary
legislation through Parliament it just won't happen. To put it bluntly pigs
will fly first.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

>>For which group ?
> The living...?

As far as I know most gun crime in the US is the result of illegal
activity to begin with.

Banning guns will not make a dent in the numbers killed by guns,
Washington DC is fairly good proof of that, given that as US states (or
in the case of DC, district) go, Washington DC has one of the highest
rates of gun crime.

Ironically, it also has one of the most restrictive gun laws allowed
under the US constitution.

Doesn't take a genius to twig that tighter gun laws have failed to cut
gun crime in Washington DC.

>>I suspect it's not that you know, it's more than you hope given your
>>prejudiced views.
>
> It's not me that's hoping, it's the tens of thousands of yanks that get
> gunned down for no reason.

Or die in car accidents for no reason, or die due to doctor error for no
reason .. both have killed more than gun crime.

I'll let you into a small secret here. The US is bigger than us, vastly
bigger, their population is somewhat larger than ours already, the point
of this patronising tone? any % of 280 million is a lot more than any %
of 60 million.

Amazing fact eh ? think on it.

BTW, in the UK, 50% of home robberies are commited whilst the homeowner
is at home.

In the US it's 13%, simply put because most robbers are not stupid and
rather like the habit known as breathing, thus dont want to get shot by
an irate homeowner.

> Eventually it will sink in and you'll ban guns, maybe even chase after
> illegal ones, you'll get there, of that there is no doubt.

As things currently stand, any attempt to ban guns by the US Federal
Govt would most likely result in widespread civil disobediance which
could descend into another civil war (could .. not would).

Civil wars tend to kill more people, the US would be better off trying
to tackle their high crime and violent crime rate than merely wasting
time and effort in banning guns, especially as the latter will not
achieve anything. Try and think past your irrationality.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:

>>
>>No training then no FAC. Period.
>>
>
>
> OK so the ~50,000 or so people who had handguns prior to 1997 would probably
> re-apply (less than 1 in 1000 of the UK population). Hardly likely to have a
> measureable effect one way or another on any crime stats.

So? currently people are barred from taking up a harmless hobby for no
rational reason. I argue that this should be reversed.

It's called "civil liberties", a concept that is rather unpopular in the UK.

> Anyway who would take them through the compulsory training? The Police? The Army? They have
> their hands full already. How long do you think it would take to put 50,000
> people through the required training?

Other trained hobbyists who've reached certification ? Aslo, you get a
lot of ex army types out there as well.

Just think, a whole new (albeit very low scale) industry could be
created, jobs! economy! taxes! money! that nice warm feeling that we
dont live in an authoritarian nanny state

> Even if British culture was to change

It doesn't require changing, hell .. those in power have been trying to
get us, the barbaric public, to get use to the fact we cant judicially
kill anyone anymore and most Brits are STILL pro DP despite the death
penalty being banned in the late 60's (I'm one of those who quite
vehemently disagree with the death penalty).

British culture does as it's told to do, or quietly disagrees and gets
on with life, as it has done for countless years in the past.

Usually you get more protestors out on the streets demanding something
NOT be banned than banned. And precious few of those as well.

> enough to put through the necessary legislation through Parliament it
> just won't happen. To put it bluntly pigs will fly first.

I dont disagree, unfortuantly that is the way it is, this doesnt mean
I'll ever agree that the gun laws are anything but an authoritarian
unjustified, and personally I believe immoral, knee jerk reaction to the
irresponsibility and blind madness of two individuals.

Though, if you think about it what I'm suggesting is not even a return
to pre 1988 laws, merely lifting current restrictions in place.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dee040$0$14269$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mort <TZW> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>No training then no FAC. Period.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK so the ~50,000 or so people who had handguns prior to 1997 would
>> probably re-apply (less than 1 in 1000 of the UK population). Hardly
>> likely to have a measureable effect one way or another on any crime
>> stats.
>
> So? currently people are barred from taking up a harmless hobby for no
> rational reason. I argue that this should be reversed.

But the method you were proposing is completely impractical.

>
> It's called "civil liberties", a concept that is rather unpopular in the
> UK.
>

And elsewhere in the western world these days (esp now that TWAT TM is being
used to scare people into trading their liberties for a dubious illusion of
'security')

>> Anyway who would take them through the compulsory training? The Police?
>> The Army? They have their hands full already. How long do you think it
>> would take to put 50,000 people through the required training?
>
> Other trained hobbyists who've reached certification ? Aslo, you get a lot
> of ex army types out there as well.

And who would vet, train and certify the 'trained hobbyists'?

>
> Just think, a whole new (albeit very low scale) industry could be created,
> jobs! economy! taxes! money! that nice warm feeling that we dont live in
> an authoritarian nanny state

Fantasy land

>
>> Even if British culture was to change
>
> It doesn't require changing, hell .. those in power have been trying to
> get us, the barbaric public, to get use to the fact we cant judicially
> kill anyone anymore and most Brits are STILL pro DP despite the death
> penalty being banned in the late 60's (I'm one of those who quite
> vehemently disagree with the death penalty).
>
> British culture does as it's told to do, or quietly disagrees and gets on
> with life, as it has done for countless years in the past.

Having spent much time on the other side of the pond (at work and at play) I
would say that in my experience Britain is much less of a rigid conformist
society than much of the so-called 'heartland' of the USA and certain
northern European countries such as Germany (which I also visit frequently
to see my wife's relatives).

>
> Usually you get more protestors out on the streets demanding something NOT
> be banned than banned. And precious few of those as well.
>
>> enough to put through the necessary legislation through Parliament it
>> just won't happen. To put it bluntly pigs will fly first.
>
> I dont disagree, unfortuantly that is the way it is, this doesnt mean I'll
> ever agree that the gun laws are anything but an authoritarian
> unjustified, and personally I believe immoral, knee jerk reaction to the
> irresponsibility and blind madness of two individuals.
>
> Though, if you think about it what I'm suggesting is not even a return to
> pre 1988 laws, merely lifting current restrictions in place.

Well I'd like to have more toys to play with on the range too but it isn't
going to happen so I'm not going to waste my life crying about confiscated
toys and living in fantasy land hoping that they'll become available again.
Shooting is very much a minority issue in the UK and the majority simply
isn't interested - that's democracy you win some you lose some.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41dedd7d$0$14260$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>For which group ?
>> The living...?
>
> As far as I know most gun crime in the US is the result of illegal
> activity to begin with.
>
> Banning guns will not make a dent in the numbers killed by guns,
> Washington DC is fairly good proof of that, given that as US states (or in
> the case of DC, district) go, Washington DC has one of the highest rates
> of gun crime.
>

Guns or no guns the problem that Washington DC has in spadefuls is poverty
(and the illegal drug trade of course).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlaCd.266$ms5.131@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:CaWdnfMpedsxt0vcRVn-pg@accessus.net...
>>
>> "didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9fdBd.95$RE.89@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>
>>> I don't try to sway anyone, I simply state the fact that creation is
>>> bunk.
>>
>> I respect your *opinion* but it is most certainly *not* a fact.
>
> Expalin the fossil record then. And Explain why the church was telling us
> the world was flat and only 4000 years old.

I don't know what "church" was claiming the world was flat and only 4000
years old. I know there are *some churches* that believe the world is @
6000-7000 years old and you can research why they believe what they do at :
www.answersingenesis.org - There is a scientific basis for their
conclusions. (same as a scientific basis for evolution - but neither can be
proved)



>>> Religion won't help me, or anyone else on Earth.
>>
>> I agree. *Religion* is what Jesus was "putting down" during his time on
>> earth. He was a proponent of a personal relationship with God.
>>
>>
>
> How can that be agreeing with me? That's nothing like what I said.

It is agreeing with you that Religion won't help you (Jesus pretty much said
the same thing). I'm not sure why you believe it is *nothing* like what you
said. It is almost identical with what you said.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Why?

"Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
news:crb2p2$d4v$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20050101134014.06458.00001517@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
> I should have known that you Shirley would be one of those inadequates who
> feels the need for an imaginary friend 🙂
> It's not up to me and other likeminded people to prove that a god doesn't
> exist it's up to you mugs who believe there is to try to prove it
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
news:crb2p3$d4v$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nbidnX3wA8hTokXcRVn-iA@accessus.net...
>>
>> "Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
>> news:cr650r$bo4$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>>>
>>> Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
>>> imaginary friends.
>>
>> I don't know any adults who need imaginary friends, but if I met any I
>> would try to help them. On the other hand, people who are absolutely
>> certain of the non-existence of God cannot prove he does not exist.
>> Therefore, you do exercise "faith" its just you have faith there is no
>> God. I have faith there is. At the very least, quit pretending to be
>> intellectually superior just because you happen to have faith in
>> something I don't. (The *non* existence of God)
>>
>
> I take it you are Shirley's imaginary friend then 🙂


Surely, you can't be serious? ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Because you creepy religious types are always on a mission to bore us
freethinkers to death

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L4ydnV_TUpMNb3zcRVn-2Q@accessus.net...
> Why?
>
> "Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
> news:crb2p2$d4v$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20050101134014.06458.00001517@mb-m26.aol.com...
>>
>> I should have known that you Shirley would be one of those inadequates
>> who feels the need for an imaginary friend 🙂
>> It's not up to me and other likeminded people to prove that a god doesn't
>> exist it's up to you mugs who believe there is to try to prove it
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news😱5-dnQeHXo9Ib3zcRVn-tQ@accessus.net...
>
> "Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
> news:crb2p3$d4v$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:nbidnX3wA8hTokXcRVn-iA@accessus.net...
>>>
>>> "Mort <TZW>" <nospam@sweatyhelmet.org> wrote in message
>>> news:cr650r$bo4$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>>>>
>>>> Personally I have absolutely zero time for adults who feel the need for
>>>> imaginary friends.
>>>
>>> I don't know any adults who need imaginary friends, but if I met any I
>>> would try to help them. On the other hand, people who are absolutely
>>> certain of the non-existence of God cannot prove he does not exist.
>>> Therefore, you do exercise "faith" its just you have faith there is no
>>> God. I have faith there is. At the very least, quit pretending to be
>>> intellectually superior just because you happen to have faith in
>>> something I don't. (The *non* existence of God)
>>>
>>
>> I take it you are Shirley's imaginary friend then 🙂
>
>
> Surely, you can't be serious? ;-)

To paraphrase Leslie Nielsen 'Don't call me Surely!' 🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Therefore, you do
exercise "faith" its just you have faith there is no God. I have faith
there is. At the very least, quit pretending to be intellectually superior
just because you happen to have faith in something I don't. (The *non*
existence of God) not1096>>>>

yeah they should at least become agnostics, at least that makes sense. I havent
seen so I dotn believe.thats fine with me. but these people who say there's no
God outright, yet not being able to prove it are no different than the
religious.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050113122653.25743.00000064@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
> yeah they should at least become agnostics, at least that makes sense. I
> havent
> seen so I dotn believe.thats fine with me. but these people who say
> there's no
> God outright, yet not being able to prove it are no different than the
> religious.

Of course we're different from you religious types - we don't feel the need
to have imaginary friends.
As you creepy religious types are never normally shy of trying to 'convert'
people it is up to you to prove the existence of God (or should that be
Gods)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Mort <TZW> wrote:
> "Known12" <known12@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20050113122653.25743.00000064@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
>>yeah they should at least become agnostics, at least that makes sense. I
>>havent
>>seen so I dotn believe.thats fine with me. but these people who say
>>there's no
>>God outright, yet not being able to prove it are no different than the
>>religious.
>
>
> Of course we're different from you religious types - we don't feel the need
> to have imaginary friends.
> As you creepy religious types are never normally shy of trying to 'convert'
> people it is up to you to prove the existence of God (or should that be
> Gods)
>
>
Hmmm, yeah throw the 'why monotheism' card... if you can believe in the
possibility of 'a god', then why stop there, why not 'some gods'? BTW,
what's the group noun for Gods? Pantheon? I know the group noun for
altar boys is 'heaven'...

For that matter in our modern world of scientific knowledge, why do the
religious say they can believe in god, angels and demons, but not
aliens? Like wtf? If god and his menagerie of exotic pets don't come
from earth, then surely that makes them aliens right? go on God, give us
elvis back...please!?

Oh, and belief there isn't a god is not 'faith', it's science, where
conclusions are drawn from empirical facts. I don't see any bloody
empirical data for god and little baby jesus, (no...the bible, creation,
george bush do NOT count...). That said, one commonality is that the
'evidence' cited by both sides is relatively incomprehensible to anyone
outside of their domain; relgious arguements require in depth knowledge
of theology to understand why there IS a god, Scientists require in
depth knowledge of physics etc to understand why there isn't...since thi
s is mostly beyond the scope of 'regular' people, then the judgement is
likely based on 'faith'...(hypocrite? moi?)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

I should have known that you Shirley would be one of those inadequates who
feels the need for an imaginary friend 🙂
It's not up to me and other likeminded people to prove that a god doesn't
exist it's up to you mugs who believe there is to try to prove it >>>>

you know,I used to think when you called me shirley,you were basically making
fun of me by using a female name for me, ie calling me a girl, but after
reading some posts here I think you think that I am a poster you know under a
different screename.not that this doesnt happen, but I am not shirley.I am
tony.