He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Tom, I do have agree with Budd on at least one point he has made. Any one should be able to post information on here to correct an incorrect statement, regardless of the topic. Isn't the whole issue behind the beating of Snoballs? To correct the misleading, incorrect and plain ignorant information that falls from his mouth every time he types?

Sorry man, I didn't know your hearing aide was that sensitive. HEHE

Budd got bored and picked up his fishing pole. He seems to be getting quite a few bites! Even some of the smarter ones have holes in their lips.

beekeep

Johnny conchsell is representing the sting ray that killed Crockodile Hunter. He says he's gonna get him off the hook.

ROTFLMBO!!!!!

Ya got me . . . . . . . .

And I can't help it if I'm darn near expert on nearly everything darned . . . .

if I'm expert on darn everything . . . .near . . . .

if I'm darn everything . . . .

Oh, to heck with it. . . . .if i know a few things well.

You still don't seem to have it figured out, Greg.

Think back . . . . .I mentioned my beliefs in a post a long time back and got ripped into for it and was accused of proselytizing, and forcing my beliefs on others (all false accusations) and was told I was an idiot for believing. And it hasn't quit.

Why should I not defend myself and my beliefs, Greg?

Well, the problem is that teasing is only fun if it's not offensive to the recipient.

Unfortunately, some cannot realize that I take offense at being teased about what is most dear to my soul, my beliefs.

Nor do I tease someone about their beliefs, for that reason. To me, teasing a person over a misstatement he made many years ago about bunny suits is one thing, but teasing a person over what he believes in, what gives him comfort in this screwed up world, is off limits.

One thing I don't quite understand is how I'm the "victim" in your eyes. I am not the victim, for according to my beliefs, I am the winner. Does that show you what I mean about how it should be off limits out of courtesy to a fellow human being? All the assaults on beliefs are damaging to a person's sense of worth.

Btw, as you, and others, have mentioned more than once, you can't always determine if a statement is in jest from pixels on a screen, so you look at that person's track record with you. Denny, Larry, Nate and others have teased me enough to understand them a bit. You, for example, in this persona at least, have been mostly antagonistic. If a person regularly hits you, do you keep letting them hit you without response?

For sure... It's been my experience that newsgroups that stay strictly on topic usually dry up and blow away... Sure, this is a good place to get and give help about Dodge trucks, but there are only so many questions to ask/answer... the wide range of other stuff we talk about is what keeps the group going between the "real" purpose of the group..

IMHO, restricting talk here to dodge is like restricting the talk at a Lions Club meeting to charity events... After a while you have an empty room to talk to.. YMWV Mac

Congratulations, Budd... that was one of the more Christian and non-judgemental statements that I've heard in a long time...

Hope he doesn't feel like it was a "personal attack"

(tongue in cheek so hard it hurts)

Mac

The occasional off-topic "OT" threads are a normal part of any unmoderated ng. And, (just in case you care), I don't have a problem with that. However, in the past few months, Budd has included religious AND/OR political BS into almost every single post that he has made. That is not the PURPOSE of this ng. And, dare I say, is unwelcome to many of this ng's participants.

OT threads are fun ... in fact, I am guilty of contributing on many occasions. What I am griping about here is 1) how common religious talk is in this ng and 2) when someone makes a post about the torque spec on a fly wheel, the subject should not go into Jesus walking on water ... unless the torque spec is something he tripped over and got wet.

Craig C.

It was the Truth. and we all know my source for Truth.

A Dodge Truck?

Craig C.

Budd, come on... no one is breaking any federal laws by telling you to "shut up" in an online discussion forum. Depriving you of your first amendment rights? Only a person or entity of authority can do that - no individual can deprive another of their freedom of speech, or religion - because they have no authority over the individual.

Case in point - person #1 is standing on a soapbox in the middle of a town square, going off about who knows what. Person #2, walking by, utters "aw, shut up, ya blithering idiot!". Person #1 most likely flips person #2 the bird, and continues on doing what he was doing.

Now - person #3, a police officer, comes along, and tells person #1, "shut up, or I'm going to arrest you". NOW there's a potential civil rights violation.

If you have a different opinion (ie. you think person #2 can be charged with a federal offense), please indicate which exact law (title and section from USC would be helpful) you feel he can be charged with breaking.

Really? Did you go to the site?

In another group, when this happened, I contacted the ACLJ, emailed them a couple examples of the "discussions" and their response was that no one has the right in an Usenet group to tell a Christian or a person of any faith or denomination to stop talking about their beliefs as part of a discussion or in response to the situations I've mentioned previously or to harrass them about their faith or belief. As a fact, the Constitution does protect me and others in those situstions.

But don't take my word for it, go to their site and ask them.

True.

Agreed., but neither example includes the unique characteristics of a Usenet group.

Tom, the whole point that I'm trying to make is just what you are saying.

There are many here that think they can tell me or anyone of any faith or denomination that they cannot speak about their faith or beliefs in an unmoderated group, especially in a response to a misquote, direct question, or a misunderstanding of a faith, is in violation of laws guaranteeing the right to speak, write or whistle in Morse Code about their beliefs. That's the real situation: they are the same ones that would deny anyone of any faith a chance to speak on their beliefs in a similar situation.

Technically, by law, I CAN, contrary to Craig's "opinion", start a religious discussion in an unmoderated group by simply adding "OT-" before the title. In moderated groups, with the permission of the moderator(s) or owner(s), the same is true.

I really wish someone, preferably someone not a friend and not biased, would take a closer look at my replies and they will see that IN THE REPLY MESSAGE BODIES, I do not proselytize or coerce, and only very carefully, in an informational form, mention my beliefs, and then post that fact for the benefit of Craig, theguy, Beekeeper, and Roy so I can drop the subject and go on with what I'm here for, answering questions. I've tried to show this but some minds are in a rut and don't want to change course

And if no one then wants to accept the truth about my "religious postings" then it proves that no matter how honest a person has been in a newsgroup, lies about that person will be accepted over the truth.

It also means this group, which was once praised and respected for quick, accurate responses to questions about nearly everything and no infighting, is headed into the trash pile fast.

Anyway, I'm done with the mess. Someone email me if anyone cares enough about religious freedoms to take an unbiased look. I'm going fishing for a couple days.

Budd

Read the reply to Tom Lawrence. Maybe you'll realize something if you are look for it.

Budd

you really are a moron.

Okay ... bye Budd.

Fishing tip for ya: You shouldn't need any bait. Try the same BS with the fish that you did in this ng. I bet the fish will jump into the boat begging to be killed and eatin.

Craig C.

Yep... saw a bunch of cases pertaining to state governments, local governments, state and federal agencies, etc. being sued for 1A violations. Nothing on individuals.

A search of their site turned up zero hits for "usenet", "newsgroup", "online forum", etc.

No, Budd - it does not. The 1st amendment prohibits CONGRESS from passing any laws infringing on your right to speech, religion, assembly, etc. There is nothing in the BoR that applies to Craig, me, or anyone else from telling you to stop talking about your beliefs.

Nope - you're the one who made the claim - you should be the one to defend it. Again, where's the law that prevents Craig from calling you a "religious nut", and to "take your religious talk to an appropriate newsgroup"?

Yes, true. Usenet is simply the electronic equivalent of the town square. People are free to wander in and out at will - to listen, to ignore, to rebut, or to comment.

You implied (some would say threatened) that you could have someone charged with a federal crime for posts they made to you in this group. I never said that.... you did.

Of course you can... not "by law" - by virtue of the fact that no one, other than your ISP, can stop you. You're free to post all you want. Others are just as free to tell you to go away. Such is the nature of Usenet.

Now, if you ISP blocked your posts, THEN you'd have a case. But because other posters here have no authority over you, or control of your posts, then they can't be in a position to deny you your rights, can they?

Our discussion here has nothing to do with religion. You made an error in your legal reasoning (by stating you could charge Craig with a federal crime for his post to you), and I'm simply trying to correct that by providing the truth. Isn't that exactly what you say you try and do? Correct people's misconceptions?

If Adam would of given Eve a little ram, that would of kept her damn mind of that apple.

Younger days had sex in a back of a plymouth. I think my old girlfriend had seen a spiritual vision while she was laying on her back.

She kept hollering and moaning Oh God, OH OH , Oh God dale