German Jews Angry at "Anti-Semitic" Scientologists
German Jews have accused the "Church" of Scientology, the bizarre cult of followers of science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, of using Holocaust material to link Sigmund Freud with Hitler.
The "Church's" campaign against psychiatry blames the Viennese Jew for promoting sex and drugs and claims that his theories "have largely been disproved." In place of Freud, the Scientologists offer a mixture of gobbledygook they call "Dianetics."
Scientology's "Commission on the Human Rights Abuses of Psychiatry" is traveling throughout Germany to persuade citizens that psychiatrists were behind the Nazi campaign to exterminate "worthless lives."
46 Comments:
careful or you might get sued.
Actually, Freud's theories have not been "disproved." They have been fiercely attacked on political grounds by feminists, which is quite a different thing.
Partisans of the pharmaceutical and bioengineering industries have also weighed in against Freud, arguing that Prozac and its derivatives have rendered psychoanalysis obsolete. No doubt such drugs have their uses, but their purpose is to fix problems with the brain's "hardware."
Freud studied the mind's software, not its hardware. I do not believe any researcher has come close to challenging him in that area.
I cannot say anything about Scientology, but from a purely historical viewpoint, it is totally accurate to say that German psychiatrists were central to the development of the gas-chamber methods of extermination. They approved and implemented the designs of the first gas-chambers used in the "euthanasia hospitals" where severely handicapped people were killed, and later were consulted on methods to construct larger and larger extermination facilities. German psychiatry also labeled Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and others as "genetically inferior" with different brains and so on, identifying a special "psychology" inherent for such "races", and so created the "scientific foundation" by which Nazi ideology could more easily spread its own hate and extermination politics. New psychiatric students in Germany routinely toured the death-camps, observing the exterminations as a part of their "education", presumably to validate what they were expected to do themselves at the "euthanasia hospitals". Most of these psychiatrists escaped punishment after WW-II, and some came to the USA to obtain teaching posts in US psychiatric hospitals and universities.
Certainly Freud did not approve of the Nazi movement, and most German psychoanalysts had to flee Germany in the wake of Hitler's ascent to power. But not all. Mainstream psychoanalysis ejected members such as Wilhelm Reich, who dared to write in opposition to the Nazis, and most felt they could "live with Hitler". Reich was actually put on Hitler's death-list for his writings, at around the same time he was thrown out of the International Psychoanalytic Association, which was predominantly then a German organization.
Karl Jung himself became an ardent spokesperson for National Socialism, and even became editor of a special "National Socialist Psychoanalysis" organization and editor of that group's journal, and it was led by the cousin of propaganda-minister Reichsmarshal Goering. The first meeting of that organization, where Jung was in attendance, had an SS officer in full uniform giving a paper on "Jewish psychology", with a big Sieg Heil at the end! And Jung wrote in the first issue of that journal "we will not obscure the differences between Jewish and German psychology".(paraphrased)
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
author of "Saharasia"
Citations:
Jeffrey Masson: Against Therapy -- see chapter "Jung Among the Nazis"
Wilhelm Reich: Mass Psychology of Fascism
Henry Friedlander: The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to Final Solution
Lenny Lapon: Mass Murderers in White Coats: Psychiatric Genocide in Nazi Germany and the United States
Anyone who would see a psychiatrist should have his head examined. Witch doctors put on a better show. The mumbo jumbo that opened prison doors killed far more than it ever cured.
...and, incidentally, what possible input could a psychiatrist have in gas chamber design? They would be worthless in technical matters.
Dr. DeMeo writes: "Karl Jung himself became an ardent spokesperson for National Socialism, and even became editor of a special `National Socialist Psychoanalysis' organization and editor of that group's journal, and it was led by the cousin of propaganda-minister Reichsmarshal Goering."
Dear Dr. DeMeo:
Your recitation omits a crucial point.
The Nazis explicitly condemned Freud and his teachings. Those psychologists who flourished in the Third Reich were precisely those who rejected Freud; who condemned Freud's "Semitic" influence over German society and who adhered to the new "Aryan" psychology fostered by the likes of Karl Jung.
By omitting this fact, you leave unwary readers with the mistaken impression that the Nazi psychologists were Freudians. They were not. The Jungian model of human consciousness - which features such quasi-mystical notions as "collective" or racial memory - bears no resemblance to Freud's.
Granted, Jung himself was formerly an acolyte of Freud, but he split with his teacher over the "Jewish question." Jung theorized that Jews such as Freud could not understand the Aryan psyche. This presumption underlay all Nazi psychology.
Psychiatrist: 1) Mind-sweeper. 2) Someone who asks a lot of expensive questions your wife asks for nothing.
Patient: Doctor, I'm manic-depressive. Psychiatrist: Calm down. Cheer up. Clam down. Cheer up. Calm... etc.
Patient: Doctor, I have a split personality. Psychiatrist: Nurse, bring in another chair.
Psychiatrist: What is wrong with your brother? Sister: He thinks he's a chicken. Psychiatrist: How long has be been acting like a chicken? Sister: Three years. We would have come in sooner, but we needed the eggs.
Patient: Doctor, I keep thinking that I'm a deck of cards! Psychiatrist: Sit over there and I'll deal with you later.
Patient: Doctor, I feel like a bridge... Psychiatrist: What's come over you? Patient: Two trucks, five cars...
Patient: Doctor, I keep thinking I'm a dustbin. Psychiatrist: Don't talk such rubbish.
Patient: Doctor, people tell me I'm a wheelbarrow. Psychiatrist: Don't let people push you around.
Patient: Doctor, I can't stop stealing things. Psychiatrist: Take these pills. They should help you. Patient: But what if they don't? Psychiatrist: Pick up a Rolls for me.
Patient: Doctor, I keep thinking I'm a curtain. Psychiatrist: Pull yourself together!
Patient: Doctor, I keep thinking I'm invisible. Psychiatrist: Who said that?
Patient: Doctor, my wife thinks I'm crazy because I like sausages. Psychiatrist: Nonsense! I like sausages too. Patient: Good, you should come see my collection. I've got hundreds of 'em.
"I'm treating a patient with a split personality," boasted a psychiatrist, "and Medicare pays for both of them!"
A patient goes to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist gives him a Rorschach Test; he shows a patient a circle with a dot inside it and asks, "What do you see?" The patient replies, "Two people are having sex in the middle of the circular room." The psychiatrist shows the patient another picture of a square with a dot inside it and asks, "What do you see?" Patient answers, "Two people are having sex in the square room." The psychiatrist shows the patient one more picture of a triangle with a dot outside it and asks, "What do you see now?" Patient replies, "Doctor, are you some kind of pervert?!?"
Man: Doctor, my wife thinks she's a refrigerator! Psychiatrist: Don't worry, it will pass. Man: But, doctor, when she sleeps with her mouth open, that damn light bugs me!
Hypnotist: Okay, Mr. Henry, when I say wake up you will no longer be shy but full of confidence and be able to speak your mind... Wake up! Patient: Right, you! How about giving me a refund, you money-grabbing old basturd.
How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one but the light bulb must want to change!
Why do psychiatrists give their patients shock treatment? To prepare them for the bill.
A psychiatrist on his rounds in a mental hospital sees a couple of patients behaving rather strangely. The first man is sitting on the edge of his bed clutching an imaginary steering wheel and making loud train noises "Chooo-Chooo... Whoooo-Whooooo..." "What are you doing?" enquires the doctor. "I'm taking a train down to Barcelona," replies the man. Somewhat taken aback but not to be put off, the doctor moves on to the next bed where he can see some very energetic activity going on underneath the covers. On pulling them back he finds a man totally naked face down into the mattress. "And what are you doing?" asks the doctor, a little perplexed. "Well," pants the man, "While he's in Barcelona, I'm boyking his wife."
I KNEW YOU COULDN'T STOP SHORT!
Jeez, Rightminded - I think you forgot to take your happy pills ; )
My Sister-in-law - no Scientologist - is convinced that a cabal of shadowy psychologists around the turn of the century collaborated on a "great experiment" and created Adolph Hitler. She, of course, can't give me any sources for this, but I think it's a weird combination of her church and her own paranoia of mental health services.
J
Mr. Tremlett writes: "My Sister-in-law - no Scientologist - is convinced that a cabal of shadowy psychologists around the turn of the century collaborated on a `great experiment' and created Adolph Hitler."
Hmmm. Most interestink.
Tell me more about zis sister-in-law, Herr Tremlett. Vould zis be ze same sister-in-law who became livid over ze fact zat Anakin Skyvalker vas born to a virgin, as ve learned in ze film Der Phantom Menace?
Plees, Herr Tremlett. Lie back. Relax. Tell me more…
Tell me more about zis sister-in-law, Herr Tremlett. Vould zis be ze same sister-in-law who became livid over ze fact zat Anakin Skyvalker vas born to a virgin, as ve learned in ze film Der Phantom Menace?
The exact same. She has some... interesting views.
J
I previously wrote: "Dear Dr. DeMeo: Your recitation omits a crucial point."
Oops. I just realized that I addressed my earlier reply to Dr. James DeMeo, when I should have addressed it to the mysterious "Oregon James," who was merely paraphrasing Dr. DeMeo in his post.
A Freudian slip?
I would correct the error in my earlier post, but sadly Blogger.com's black-box software does not provide such basic editorial functions. I can delete posts but cannot edit them.
Whoever wrote this program is plainly afflicted with an "authoritarian personality" complex and deeply in need of Dr. Freud's ministrations.
P.S. Curiously, "Oregon James" shares a first name with Dr. James DeMeo. And it turns out that Dr. DeMeo is a Reichian psychologist who runs something called the Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. So perhaps no correction is needed.
I previously asked (in Dr. Freud mode): "Tell me more about zis sister-in-law, Herr Tremlett. Vould zis be ze same sister-in-law who became livid over ze fact zat Anakin Skyvalker vas born to a virgin, as ve learned in ze film Der Phantom Menace?
Herr Tremlett replied: "The exact same. She has some... interesting views."
I see.
And do you sink, Herr Tremlett, zat your sister-in-law's eccentricities might have contributed to your negatif attitude toward church-going people in general?
I don't understand the praising of Freud and psychotherapy in general. Over thirty years ago there was a rather disturbing study that showed that whether people underwent psychotherapy or not roughly 1/3 showed improvement, 1/3 got worse and 1/3 stayed about the same. This was true of every form of psychotherapy investigated including Freudian psychoanalysis.
Look at Freud's intellectual descendants - Jung became a Nazi, Reich ended up in the Arizona desert trying to shoot down flying saucers with his "cloudbuster". (No I am not making this up).
One of the signs of pseudo-science is that the theories never expand and never lead to new ideas. Nothing gets built on them. Freudian analysis, orgone therapy, chiropractic, scientology all teach the exact same stuff today that was "discovered" by the originators of these theories.
Physicist Richard Feynman once said that the greatest reward for his work was not the prizes or adulation, it was when he saw someone take his ideas and build on them. Historically, it has always been the case that great ideas lead to more great ideas. Such cannot be said for Freud, Jung, Reich, Hubbard or the rest of the cult leaders.
Mr. Meyer writes: "Over thirty years ago there was a rather disturbing study that showed that whether people underwent psychotherapy or not roughly 1/3 showed improvement, 1/3 got worse and 1/3 stayed about the same."
Assuming that these results are accurate (and unsullied by the agendas of academic infighters), I'm not certain that they represent a finding all that different from what we would see in many other respected areas of medicine.
For instance, I'm not prepared to write off microbiology as a "cult" or a "pseudoscience" simply due to its embarrassing failure to make significant headway in the treatment of common colds and flus for more than a century.
Mr. Poe:
Microbiology hasn't made much progress against colds and flu but has done quite well against tuberculosis, typhoid, polio and many other diseases. Psychotherapy hasn't made much progress against any forms of mental illness, at least none of which I am aware.
Medicine has only been a real science for the last fifty years or so. Prior to that it was an art that had discovered some important facts but basically still had no understanding of the fundamental processes of life. Psychology is still at the stage of an art, albeit with fewer successes than medicine at a comparable stage of development.
Medicine was almost impotent prior to the germ theory of disease. Psychology still awaits the Pasteur or Koch that will find the unifying principle that explains mental malfunctioning.
L.Ron.Hubbard began a crusade against psychiatry when his own psychiatric method was not accepted and indeed ridiculed by the psychiatric establishment. Therefore in order to prove that he was right and that they were wrong...to his followers..."exposing" psychiatry as a charade has been a primary focus of the "mission" of scientology.
Of course the irony is that dianetics and the whole scientology method is nothing but a type of psycho-analysis, a type of psychiatry.
A few weeks back I saw Tom Cruise being interviewed about scientology (he is a true believer), he was speaking about the evils of psychiatry with a distrubing gleam in his eye and with a noticable excitement.
The cult needs to constantly rail against the psychiatric establishment and profession because it needs an excuse to believe in for the fact of the rejection and belittling of scientology by the psychiatric establishment. The cult members know that their entire costly series of teachings and analysis is nothing more then psycho-analysis with the addition of a type of feedback machine. In the final stages a quasi religious teaching about aliens, and souls being trapped in a volcano see Who is Xenu? is revealed as the secret truth. By the time you have reached that stage you have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In Germany there has been a very harsh reaction by the government to scientology.
As far as the contention about psychiatrists being the architects of the shoah, that is pure bunk.
Darwinism and it's social application (social darwinism) were the driving ideologies of the German eugenics planners.
Ever since Darwinism became accepted as a scientific fact it was accompanied by and usually used as a "scientific" validation for Social Darwinism.
During the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century the upper classes of western europe and espeically Germany were under the spell of one Madame Helena Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society.
I won't go into the details of their teachings. Except one. She also was a Darwinist. She had created a theory about the human "races" and their history and origins. The Nazi theories were almost identical to Blavatskys. She was a guiding light to many in the nazi hierarchy due to the prominence and influence of The Theosophical Society. See Nazis and Aryans
In her theories she had gradations of human "races", some more evolved then others, with the aryan (nordic not indian) race as the most evolved. Jews were somewhere in the middle. But she despised Jews as did the rest of the Theosophists. Blavatskys breakthrough book was called The Secret Doctrine (1888)
During that time the ideology of human races being more and less evolved from each other was accepted and even taught as fact in schoolbooks in America and Europe. Previous to Darwinian ideology the idea od RACE was nationalistic or cultural e.g the Spanish or Greek or French races. After Darwin race became a biological term.
The full title of Darwin's magnum opus was:
'On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'
Social Darwinism was based on "survival of the fittest" and Malthusian paranoia. Eugneics became popular for those reasons.
The Germans were ardent believers in all of the above. See Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
Psychiatrists may have been a part of the Nazi plans but they were not the originators nor were they the driving force, they were legitimizers.
eli-jah:
To associate the scientific theory of evolution with Nazi anti-semitism is worse than stupid, it is immoral.
Germany was virulently anti-semitic long before Darwin. Martin Luther wanted to hang Jews from special scaffolds, Richard Wagner saw the Jews as the destroyers of German culture.
The evolution that the Nazis were interested in was not in the genes but in the "blood". Dormant supernatural powers, supposedly in the blood of Aryans, had been corrupted by Jews. Jewish blood had severed man from the spiritual world that only pure Aryans could hope to contact.
Blavatsky's idiot "Secret Doctrine" held that there were ancient peoples that possessed these spiritual powers - the Atlanteans - and of the Atlantean races the Aryans were the most highly developed. Apparently, some of the German biologists, under the influence of Blavatsky, had hoped to breed back the supernatural powers of the Atlanteans.
Blavatsky was a crank, she was merely the L Ron Hubbard of her day. The major difference is the Germany was begging for a dictator and Hitler, who was no fool, would accept any lunacy if it grew the Nazi party. Would an American Hitler use Scientology to gain power? Duh!
Just how anti-semitic was Germany? The predominant physics journal of the early 20th century was "German Physics" which refused articles by Jewish physicists in order to cleanse physics of the Jewish influences (like Einstein). You may as well blame physics for anti-semitism along with evolution.
You should read the last link I gave , it is quite thorough in it's investigation.
As far as Evolution being a science, well that is your opinion and that of many others, one I fail to see any kind of scientific reasoning or evidence to support it.
See Evolution is dead
eli-jah:
The theory of evolution is so solid that no scientific arguments can be brought against it. That's why many bible thumpers resort to the cry of "NAZIS, NAZIS!"
So thoroughly have the creationists been discredited that the major creationist organization won't even use "creation" in its name. They call themselves the "Discovery Institute". Soon, they will no doubt change their name again when they have finished making idiots of themselves.
Since Al-Qaeda also opposes the theory of evolution perhaps we should start calling creationists "Jihadis". It is just as logical as calling evolutionists Nazis.
Reich ended up in the Arizona desert trying to shoot down flying saucers with his "cloudbuster". (No I am not making this up).
Yes indeed. Wilhelm Reich was an interesting guy. It's a pity he wasn't around today, when some of his less out-there ideas could be properly appreciated without his being unduly nailed for some of his more out-there ideas.
J
And do you sink, Herr Tremlett, zat your sister-in-law's eccentricities might have contributed to your negatif attitude toward church-going people in general?
Please find something I've written, since 2001, that you think shows a negative attitude on my part towards church-going people in general.
J
Bob I'm sure you're a nice guy regardless of your brainwashed uneducated rhetoric and bad manners. That seems to be going around a lot these days. To rebut your stepford wife lockstep blind faith in the evolution brainwashing cult, I present the following to counter your/their claim (the typical lie) that evolution is respectable.
From Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."
From Professor Jerome Lejeune, Often called the "Father of modern genetics"
"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain: I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."
From: I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities , Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science "
From Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist, English Summary of Synthetische Artbildung
"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution."
From Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture,"
"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."
From Prof.Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."
From Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University
"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
From Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
From Dr. Arthur Koestler
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."
From Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician
"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
From Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London
"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
From Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History
"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
From Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel
"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
From Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist
"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, "The Creation-Evolution Controversy"
"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."
From Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."
From Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."
From Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
From Dr.Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."
From Dr. K Hsu, pre-eminent geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."
From Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century."
From Dr. David Berlinski Ph.D. in mathematics, Princeton University
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."
From H.S. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980),
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it."
From Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology"
"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."
From Astronomer George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe"
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency--or, rather, Agency--must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
From Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University
"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine. Moreover, I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but it is to be preferred over the evolutionary one."
Meyer spits his venom in the face of ones belief system, like a venomous spiting cobra by spewing,
"The theory of evolution is so solid that no scientific arguments can be brought against it."
(1) Then why is it called a theory?
(2) Please show me the direct evolutionary evidence from great ape to man!--especially that missing link deal!
(3)Your statement is a classic Argumentum ad ignorantiam meaning "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(4)The theory of evolution does not rule out the care, guardianship, and control exercised by The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit!
GOD, ARE YOU A SOULLESS PHILISTINE!
Bob is typical of so many brainwashed people these days. They don't actually know about the actual science involved in the various fields which supposedly validate evolution. Since they have never studied in depth the scientific arguments for and against evolution, they therefore think that since evolution receives preferential treatment in mass media and public schools that it is a proven fact that evolution is...in fact proven.
Of course anybody who is educated in the science knows the truth. Evolution is impossible. Period. The arguments against evolution are numerous and authentic, the arguments for evolution are inauthentic and lack even the most basic level of acceptablity that other theories usually require. This is because evolution is not science, there is no science to evolution, all it is, is an empty philosophical dogma. All the tenets that the giant edifice of evolution has been built upon for so many years have been debunked one by one with the advancement of technology in the aide of biochemistry. Evolution is know supported only by the ignorant and the economically motivated.
In every field involved with evolution all of the previous "proofs" have been proven to be false.
!. Spontaneous generation is impossible. In Darwins day they thought that life arose from "protoplasm". With their primitive microscopes they thought cells were blobs of gook. They theorized that a muddy type of muck (protoplasm) magically gave rise to cells, which they thought were living amorphous blobs. From cells somehow living walking flying creatures "evolved". Sure it sounds stupid, but when you are brainwashed from childhood, anything stupid if presented with enough big sounding words repetitively by "experts" will be believable. Now, we know that cells are created from other cells, from the DNA and RNA. They are the most complicated systems ever encountered by science. It is impossible for a cell to come into existence without DNA and RNA, the only place you can get DNA and RNA is from cells. This is called irreducible complexity.
Besides that, the biochemistry involved that would be necessary to occur naturally which would produce the building blocks of life i.e the right kinds of amino acids, organic molecules,etc, which are needed to create a cell, are just as impossible to happen by chance as cells are. They are amazingly intricate and complex susbstances which do not occur by chance in nature, they come into existence from living things, not from non living nature.
2.The fossil record. The fossil record is dirty little secret of evolution.
3. I could go on and on, but others already have.
Of course dogmatists who believe in evolution out of ignorance are difficult to convince that they are wrong, they are more often then not simply too lazy to do the study required to free their minds.
Rightminded writes to Mr. Meyer: "Meyer spits his venom in the face of ones belief system, like a venomous spitting cobra... GOD, ARE YOU A SOULLESS PHILISTINE!"
Mr. Meyer writes to eli-jah: "To associate the scientific theory of evolution with Nazi anti-semitism is worse than stupid, it is immoral."
eli-jah writes to Mr. Meyer: "Bob I'm sure you're a nice guy regardless of your brainwashed uneducated rhetoric and bad manners. That seems to be going around a lot these days."
Gentlemen, please.
Not only are we wandering off topic, but we are allowing this discussion to degenerate into ad hominem name-calling.
Please let us refrain from personal insults.
And eli-jah, please remember that the topic under discussion here is the charge raised in some quarters that Nazi psychology derived from the work of Sigmund Freud.
You are welcome to raise the topic of evolution inasmuch as it does have relevance to this discussion (especially as it touches on the question of what constitutes a science and what does not). However, the sheer length of some of your posts tends to take you far afield. I recommend that you keep your posts short and keep the original topic of this thread ever in mind.
Thank you in advance, gentlemen, for your kind cooperation.
Mr. Tremlett writes: "Please find something I've written, since 2001, that you think shows a negative attitude on my part towards church-going people in general."
Dear Mr. Tremlett:
Your response surprises me.
I did not expect you to deny that you held church-going people in low esteem. It had been my impression that contempt for religious faith informed many of your posts, either explicitly or implicitly.
However, if you tell me that you do, in fact, respect religious believers, I will take your word for it and offer my apology for presuming otherwise.
P.S. Why do you single out 2001 as a watershed year? Just curious.
Mr. Meyer writes: "The theory of evolution is so solid that no scientific arguments can be brought against it."
Personally, I have no quibble with evolution. But your statement that "no scientific arguments can be brought against it" gives me pause. A genuinely scientific approach to the question would be more open to critique and revision, I would think.
Mr. Meyer writes: "Microbiology hasn't made much progress against colds and flu but has done quite well against tuberculosis, typhoid, polio and many other diseases. ... Psychology still awaits the Pasteur or Koch that will find the unifying principle that explains mental malfunctioning."
I chose a poor example in microbiology. Neurology would have better illustrated my point.
In fact, Freud began his career as a neurologist. In his day, neurological disorders were treated mainly by applying various levels of electroshock to affected areas of the body. Sometimes it helped. Sometimes it didn't. No one had a clue why, in either case.
Freud and others noticed that some neurological symptoms seemed to be "hysterical" in origin, which is to say that people with troubled minds showed an odd ability to mimic familiar neurological dysfunctions. The patients themselves were not aware that they were doing this. They did it unconsciously. And they really suffered loss of neurological function.
Freud found that function could be restored, in some cases, through hypnosis and other sorts of "talking cures."
He therefore proposed that some neurological symptoms (including very severe symptoms, such as loss of speech, severe pain, partial paralysis, and so forth) had their origin not in physical damage to the nerves but in what he called "lesions of the mind" -- glitches, if you will, in the brain's software, as opposed to damage to its hardware.
This was Freud's great intuition, upon which all his later work rested.
We can quibble all we like over the efficacy of Freud's therapeutic methods, but his recognition that "lesions of the mind" can cause physical dysfunction and, further, that these "lesions" lie in the unconscious realm, is surely accurate.
I don't think he deserves to be called a cult leader, a witch doctor or a charlatan.
Mr Poe wrote:
I don't think he deserves to be called a cult leader, a witch doctor or a charlatan.
I too, should have been more specific. Freud didn't lead a cult, but many people formed cults around his "ego, superego, id" concepts.
His work with hysteria and the effects of psychological trauma was innovative and highly beneficial in that it established mind-body connections that were not believed to exist.
He was truly a pioneer and innovator.
eli-jah:
I'll try to keep this short.
You have amassed a huge collection of quotes, some of which are out of context. The Koestler quote is completely out of context.
Koestler firmly believed in evolution, his objection to Darwin's cult followers was that they refused to consider any mechanism guiding evolution beyond chance variations. Koestler believed that chance plays a part but that there were other forces at work that favored certain forms over other. He cites D'Arcy Thompson's work showing nature's preference for certain kinds of structures.
I highly recommend both "The Ghost in the Machine" and "The Act of Creation" for anyone interested in either evolution or the general principles of how things become organized.
As for the "scientificness" of creationism:
A scientific theory shows the relationship between known facts. For instance, the theory of gravitation shows the relationship between the fact that things fall on earth and the fact that planets follow very specific paths in the sky. The connection lay in Newton’s discovery of an attractive force between all material objects.
Likewise, the theory of evolution shows the connection between the fact that animal species have changed over time and the fact that animal breeders can selectively breed animals to have certain desirable traits. The connection is in inheritable characteristics.
“Irreducible complexity” is not a theory because it explains nothing. It is the declaration that no natural explanation is possible and therefore a supernatural explanation is warranted. However, had the same principle been applied to the motion of the planets four hundred years ago it would have pronounced the very complex and intricate patterns of motion to have been “irreducibly complex” and shut the door to any subsequent natural explanation.
At any point in history there are always things that are unexplained. Positing a supernatural agency as the explanation for phenomena that are not yet understood is simply an attempt to stop scientific progress by diverting the inquisitive energy of mankind into superstition. Supernaturalism in science is the death knell of civilization.
Well obviously you are not well read on evolution.
First a bit about probability from a triple Phd from M.I.T and former professor there.
If I asked you "Show me evolution in the fossil record?" What would you show?
Not evolution, like you pointed out all that can be shown is inter species change i.e breeding. If I breed a small dog over a long period of time with bigger dogs I can create a large breed of dog. That is not evolution.
Evolution means that species gradually morph into other species.
For instance birds.Lets say that reptiles evolved into birds. That means we should find in the fossil record million of fossils of intermediate species between reptiles and birds. We should find millions of fossils of reptiles showing the gradual transition into birds. Creatures with partial beaks, partial wings, partial feathers, etc. Now multiply that by trillions because every species in existence today according to evolution should have a vast amount of predecessor transition species viewable in the fossil record. We should find species by the trillions which are in transition between one species and another with body structures showing that transition. This is simple logic right?
But we don't.
What the fossil record shows is that there are no provable transition species, one or two are argued over, but the fact is that there should be more transition fossils then non transition fossils in the fossil record. There should be fossils showing stunted wings by the millions, stunted feathers, stunted hooves, stunted claws, stunted limbs of every type. But instead we find only complete species, no transitional fossils. Darwin knew this was a problem for his theory. He said:
The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Darwin, C. (1859)
The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)
Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Kitts, David B. [Professor of Geology, University of Oklahoma], "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p.467).
"The hazards of preservation and subsequent exposure impose another bias- against groups of animals that were rare or geographically restricted. This bias is particularly unfortunate, since most major evolutionary changes probably occurred in small, isolated populations that were subject to stringent selection pressure (Dobzhansky et al., 1977; Mayr, 1963; Simpson, 1953). Where information regarding transitional forms is most eagerly sought, it is least likely to be available. We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians or between primitive insectivores and bats; only a single species, Archaeopteryx lithographica represents the transition between dinosaurs and birds. (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution," W.H. Freeman & Co: New York NY, 1988, p.4
If Evolution were true then we would see it in the fossil record, but we dont. Instead we see fully formed species arrive suddenly in the fossil record with no build up, no gradual morphing from one state to the next.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." (Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," [1995], p.hoenix: London, 1996, p.95).
"The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G. [Assistant Professor of Geology, Harvard University], "Morphological stasis and developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p.214).
As far as irreducible complexity goes, clearly you dont understand what it means nor what it implies. Take a mango tree. Where did it come from? It comes from a mango seed and from the mango flower pollination system. It is a closed system. Remove the mango seed or pollination system and you cannot produce a mango tree. You need a fully formed mango tree in order to produce a mango tree. Gradualism cannot produce a mango tree because the mango tree production system requires it to be fully formed in order to produce a mango seed, which is the only place a mango tree can come from. It is irreducibly complex. You need the entire mango tree in order to produce a mango tree. If the mango tree came about from evolution then where did it come from? You need a mango seed, which needs a fully functioning mango tree to produce it.
That is true of all organic biological systems, be they plant or animal. Every part from the tiniest proteins to the mango tree or the elephant is part of an irreducibly complex system. This is why mutations that have been observed always cause dysfunction, they damage the system. The system cannot be changed and still work.
If I took a screwdriver to your computer's motherboard and randomly "by chance" started messing with it, what would the result be? I would damage it. It is a carefully laid out system interdependent on the various parts for the whole thing to function. Take out a part and it fails to work, change a part and it fails to work, the only way that it could continue to work is if a conscious educated computer expert made specific changes with full knowledge of what to do. Otherwise any "mutation" would harm the computer.
In fact that is how mutations work in the natural world. Mutations are always harmful. I heard someone argue "What about a virus? They mutate and adapt, that is beneficial" No, they do not mutate in the evolutionary sense. Mutate means a random unnatural occurrence. A virus doesn't mutate, it adapts and seemingly mutates, but that is it's inherent capability, it is what a virus can do. A mutation in evolutionary theory is a novel occurrence outside the bounds of a species naturally inherent functionality. All mutations ever observed are harmful.
I could go on and on. But Bob, you are clearly a dogmatist. You don't believe in evolution because of the science, it's a philosophy, it's an ontological outlook, it is not a positive view based on provable or even possible reality, it is reactionary, it is a reaction against the only possible alternative.
From Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."
Sir Fred Hoyle, British physicist and astronomer
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein."
From Professor Harold Morowitz
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"
From Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability
"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place."
From Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge
"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species."
From George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
From Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, "Cosmos, Bios, and Theos"
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan."
From the pre-eminent Physicist Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics"
"It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out...The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design."
From Stephen Hawking
"The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."
From Albert Einstein
"Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
Sorry for the last lengthy post but I wanted to complete my input on evolution.
As far as Freud one of the big problems many modern psychologists have with him are his sexual theories and his use of a few patients to create a universal theory.
The problem of creating a universal theory is that people are different. They come from a wide array of backgrounds and therefore no single theory will fit everyone. When dealing with mental and emotional causes and effects there are numerous variables that make creation of a simple theory that will fit everyone impossible.
On top of that the limitations of the observer or psycho-analyst will also affect the ability to properly diagnose and treat a patient. Essentially psycho-analysis is very hit and miss. Some people may benefit but there is no magical cure-all benefit from it and it can just as liekly cause harm by creating false ideas and false diagnosis leading to harmful drugs.
What the scientologists say has some validity when they confine their critique to psychiatry rather then their attempts to denigrate psychiatry on it's misuse historically. Sure psychiatrists have done bad things in the name of science, but the nazis were not alone in that. Lobotomies were sanctioned for people with minor or even no real ilness at all in America nd Europe until not long ago. Psychiatry has a long history of abuse in all western countires. But that doesn't mean that psychiatry is to blame any more then a knife is to blame for it's use by a killer. A knife in the hand of a surgeon saves lives, in the hands of a criminal it can take life.
I will spare the readers another book on the subject of evolution.
The fossil record is clear to anyone who looks at it. The similarities in DNA between species shows almost the exact same evolutionary chains as the fossil records.
Quoting scientists will not change these facts no matter how many times you do so.
For anyone still interested I suggest that you read the actual works of evolutionists and creationists. Then look at the fossil data and DNA trees yourself. The truth will be fairly obvious.
Meyer, it is called a debate.
You presented your argument in the format, and forum provided, as did eli-jah.
IF THAT'S ALL YOU GOT, YOU LOST!
I did not expect you to deny that you held church-going people in low esteem. It had been my impression that contempt for religious faith informed many of your posts, either explicitly or implicitly.
Well, that's what you get when you assume, Mr. Poe - egg on your face and a plate full of crow. Now, aren't you glad you made that comment in a blog post's comment train instead in a blog post?
However, if you tell me that you do, in fact, respect religious believers, I will take your word for it and offer my apology for presuming otherwise.
I respect people of faith and spirituality, so long as (1) their faith does not turn them into bigots, dogmatics, zealots or terrorists, and (2) their faith produces or maintains a positive change in their person.
I realize that "positive" is highly subjective, but I've found that there's often a very overt difference between people who've been touched by the Divine, and have been inspired to be better than they are, and those who are just going through the motions for whatever reason.
Now, I'm not so keen on all churches. But I can't condemn all people within one church simply because I disagree with some or all of their core teachings. There's light and darkness to be found everywhere, and in everyone.
I'll accept your apology, Mr. Poe. I'm also going to seriously challenge you to assume less about people, if only so you can avoid having to apologize about things like this in the future.
J
ps: anything I wrote that's online from before 2001 is most likely from my "grouchy atheist" years. I can't take many of those things back, but I have moved a great distance from where I was, then.
J. Edward Tremlett, puffs himself up and indites,
"Well, that's what you get when you assume, Mr. Poe - egg on your face and a plate full of crow. Now, aren't you glad you made that comment in a blog post's comment train instead in a blog post?
He also adds,
"I'll accept your apology, Mr. Poe. I'm also going to seriously challenge you to assume less about people, if only so you can avoid having to apologize about things like this in the future.
You're lucky Mr. Poe even talks "wi' such a leetle scanty whipper-snapper as yon?" (Dickens, Nicholas Nickelby).--Running about son of mahound- land, and cyberspace, snapping your leetle scanty whipper!
See now, that's the difference between a Godly man (Mr. Poe), and a man only a few years removed from being a rabid, fanatic, religious atheist (you J.E.T.). The Godly man throws the atheist a bone of potential peace, and the atheist, ahem, removed, uses it to smack him in the back of the head!
See now, that's the difference between a Godly man (Mr. Poe), and a man only a few years removed from being a rabid, fanatic, religious atheist (you J.E.T.).
That's another false assumption. I wasn't a 'rabid, fanatic, religious atheist' by any means: I did not believe in God, and I wasn't shy about saying so, but I didn't go around evangelizing for atheism.
In fact, I found proselyting atheists to be uniformly weird, creepy and distasteful - remember Madeline Murray O'Hair?
On the other hand, a good number of the people trying to get me to become Christian again seemed to be gentle souls who were actually worried about my well-being.
There were some real creeps in there, too, but they were exceptions rather than the rule. I didn't always appreciate that distinction at the time - I sure do now.
As for your comments about how I replied to Mr. Poe's insult - and it was an insult, to my way of thinking - I'm not going to lecture you, sir, but I'll humbly suggest you attend to the beam in your own eye. When you can disagree with Bob Meyer without bombarding him with shrill insults, I will consider your critiques of my posts as valid.
J
J.E.T. writes,
" I'm not going to lecture you, sir, but I'll humbly suggest you attend to the beam in your own eye."
A test for ole' Rightminded, eh!
Child's play!
For the uninitiated he is attempting to lay a little Protestant Chapter and verse on me.--Luke Chapter 6:
42. Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye
The Catholic Bible uses the word speck instead of mote, and log instead of beam!
"When you can disagree with Bob Meyer without bombarding him with shrill insults, I will consider your critiques of my posts as valid."
Here's a couple verses from Luke Chapter 6 of the Protestant Bible, for you and Meyer--I do not forget what you two said about Terri, and what you both are about!-- LIFE IS THE HOLY SPIRIT!
10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
38 For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Incidentally there J.E.T, the last time I checked, you did not pick up that Revolutionary War gauntlet Mr. Poe tossed at your feet.
Wise choice, the over cleaning of ones clock can destroy it!
Just because you're forgiven doesn't give you carte blanche to rack up things for God to forgive, last I checked.
But hey, if that's the only way you can communicate with people, then that's the way it is.
Incidentally there J.E.T, the last time I checked, you did not pick up that Revolutionary War gauntlet Mr. Poe tossed at your feet.
What gauntlet was that?
J
J.E.T. writes,
Just because you're forgiven doesn't give you carte blanche to rack up things for God to forgive, last I checked.
But hey, if that's the only way you can communicate with people, then that's the way it is
Ok, whatever!
J.E.T. also asks,
"What gauntlet was that?"
Oh I see, and here I was assuming that you punked out, and didn't want to try and prove you were a better writer than Mr. Poe.
Well, it is now me that has egg on my face, and a plate full of crow for assuming such a thing about you.--PLEASE FORGIVE ME KIND SIR!
Now aren't you glad I have been checking the thread in question, to see if you were going to bend over and snatch that gauntlet up?
NO THANKS NECESSARY! Here's the thread, simply scroll to the end!
Best of luck to you, Sir!
Now aren't you glad I have been checking the thread in question, to see if you were going to bend over and snatch that gauntlet up?
That desperate for entertainment, eh? ; )
Well, thank you for calling my attention that that matter. I have given it the thought it deserves, and replied accordingly.
We now return to our normally-scheduled lurking.
J
"You waste your time, Aragorn! They had no honor in life, they have none now in death."
Just as....
...."You waste your time, Rightminded! J.E.T. had no honor in life, he will have none in death."
I forgot J.E.T,
You are now free to return to the other "Lords of the Pusillanimous!"
...."You waste your time, Rightminded! J.E.T. had no honor in life, he will have none in death."
Now that is funny.
Replace "honor" with "willingness to waste time" and you'd be hitting the nail on the head.
J
Whatever gets you through the night there ***"paparazzo!"
***And I did not call you a freelance photographer!
Post a Comment
<< Home