Discussion:
10's of 1,000's, perhaps 100's of 1,000,s Saw God!
(too old to reply)
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:07:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:31:28 +0000, Richard Heathfield
NIV UK: And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Douay Rheims: And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
The Message: Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
This discusses the parents who need to forgive others.
Right. And the punk is "others", so the parents need to forgive him.
As long as you know that God does not forgive the punk - even he says
he is sorry. He must repent, and then pay for his crime.
The authorities that God has placed on Earth will ensure that the
murderer pays the penalty for murder. On that we agree. We also agree, I
think, that there is a penalty for sin, and that that penalty is eternal
separation from God. If we have to pay that price, there is no hope for
anyone, not even St Peter and St Paul. And therefore I disagree with you
- God /does/ forgive Christians who, having sinned, seek His
forgiveness. I think the Bible's teaching on this is abundantly clear,
and I have posted examples of that teaching in this thread.
Absolutely.
I believe this with all my heart.
God loves us always.
And He wants to forgive our sins.
If we truly repent.
Once you are saved, and you do something bad, NOW WHAT?
Repentance, confession, resistance.
OK.
And then what, welcomed back into the fold?
What would you suggest? Condemnation?
No.
I am saying that the person is NOT ALWAYS SAVED.
There are now conditions for that sinner to be back in the fold of
OSAS.
Then we are re-treading old ground. I have laid out the Biblical
justification for my position, so there's no point in re-posting it.
Yes, I know.
And you certainly know my position.
If we sin against God, we must repent before we can be forgiven.
That forgiveness cannot just be taken for granted.
What (then) is the difference between you and me?
I repent, go to confession, and try to resist the occasions of sin.
Repent, confess, resist. It's the same. So, as you say, what is the
practical difference?
The practical difference is that I do not feel that once I have been
saved, I will always be saved. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
Oh, okay. I am secure in God's love. You could be, too, if you allowed
yourself to be.
I prefer to follow the words in the Bible.
The Words that speak to me.
I really do not look for or see a way out.
One day a serpent came to Eve and questioned her. Eve knew that the
Tree’s fruit was not to eaten, or else she would die. The serpent
stirred up doubt in Eve by asking if God had really given such an
instruction.
This is a common trick. Several times when I have been given the
clearest possible direction, the very next thought to pop into my head
is "Did God /really/ say that?" Other Christians have told me that they,
too, have experienced this.
I'm not sure of your point.
Let us agree to disagree about the OSAS doctrine.
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:11:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:35:03 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:54:27 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:44:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
[...] the /original/
issue, i.e. Robert's claim that the NT had not yet been written when
Mary and Joseph received angelic visitations. You mocked him for making
that (correct) claim.
And I will do it again.
Since that was NOT his claim.
Robert: The NT was not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
That is not the entire discussion.
And you know it.
Yes, of course I know it. I wasn't referring to the entire discussion.
+ And NEITHER WAS I.
Why is it that you can jump on some true comment based on a lie, and I
cannot direct your attention to what I consider to be a lie?


I
was only referring to the part I noticed.
SO WAS I.
That was the part where you
mocked a correct claim. I'm not saying everything Robert said was right;
I'm saying /that bit/ was right. And I'm not saying that everything you
said was wrong. I'm saying /that bit/ of what you said was wrong.
I got people to pay attention to the section that I disagreed with,
didn't I? I did get my point across. You just don't like the way I
did it.
OK then, now we both know.
I think.
Unless you bring it up again and again...
You: Which angel certified it? You say the NT was not written? Did it
show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
The mockery is quite clearly directed at "The NT was not written...at
that point".
No, it was not.
And you know it.
It's hard to see how it could have been directed at anything else.
That certainly is not my problem what you can or cannot see.
And I will not apologize for your poor eye sight.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 16:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:35:03 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:54:27 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:44:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
[...] the /original/
issue, i.e. Robert's claim that the NT had not yet been written when
Mary and Joseph received angelic visitations. You mocked him for making
that (correct) claim.
And I will do it again.
Since that was NOT his claim.
Robert: The NT was not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
That is not the entire discussion.
And you know it.
Yes, of course I know it. I wasn't referring to the entire discussion.
+ And NEITHER WAS I.
I know. You were referring to the bit we both agreed on, and I was
referring to the bit we disagreed on.
Post by Patrick
Why is it that you can jump on some true comment based on a lie,
Actually, it was the other way around - I was making on observation on
your incorrect mocking of a correct statement.
Post by Patrick
and I
cannot direct your attention to what I consider to be a lie?
Well, you can, and you did, many times over (although I don't consider
an honest mistake to be a lie). And I have several times acknowledged
that your point about there being more than one visitation is correct.
There is no point in discussing it because we both agree about it.
Post by Patrick
I
was only referring to the part I noticed.
SO WAS I.
And yet we are still talking about different things.
Post by Patrick
That was the part where you
mocked a correct claim. I'm not saying everything Robert said was right;
I'm saying /that bit/ was right. And I'm not saying that everything you
said was wrong. I'm saying /that bit/ of what you said was wrong.
I got people to pay attention to the section that I disagreed with,
didn't I? I did get my point across.
You did. And nobody, as far as I can recall, has questioned it.
Post by Patrick
You just don't like the way I
did it.
No, I had no problem with the way you dealt with the multiple
visitations thing. I had a problem with the way you incorrectly mocked a
correct statement about the time of authorship of the NT.
Post by Patrick
OK then, now we both know.
I think.
Unless you bring it up again and again...
You: Which angel certified it? You say the NT was not written? Did it
show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
The mockery is quite clearly directed at "The NT was not written...at
that point".
No, it was not.
And you know it.
It's hard to see how it could have been directed at anything else.
That certainly is not my problem what you can or cannot see.
And I will not apologize for your poor eye sight.
It was not poor eyesight that led me to the conclusion I reached.
Rather, it was an honest and competent reading of what you actually wrote.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:43:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:57:11 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:47:31 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:08:06 +0000, Richard Heathfield
I wasn't interested in your problem with Robert's statement.
+ And yet you felt it necessary to get into the discussion.
Yes. I /was/ interested in the way you mocked Robert not for saying
something that is strictly incorrect (he glossed over the fact that
Joseph's and Mary's angelic visitations were separate) but for saying
something /true/ - i.e. that the NT wasn't written at the time of those
visitations.
Will you agree with me ........... or not.
On the matter of Joseph and Mary receiving separate visitations, yes, of
course - that was never in question (despite your apparent belief that
it was).
It was not an apparent belief.
So either you thought it wasn't apparent that it wasn't in question (but
I think it was apparent to everyone else even if it wasn't apparent to
you), or you didn't believe that it was in question, in which case I
don't see why you keep raising it over and over.
Do you actually feel that beating a dead horse will make me accept
your point?
No, of course not, which is why I made a firm decision not to beat a
dead horse. I don't even /have/ a dead horse.
If that is the new discussion topic, then ... YES, I have had a dead
horse. Slow-Poke.
Nor do I expect that you will accept my point.
I accept your point that you are disappointed in what I said, and who
I said it to. Is there more? (I am sure there is......)
By refusing to accept the point, however, you continue to maintain that
( See, I told you....)
a) you don't understand English;
b) when your bullying is challenged you are unable to acknowledge it;
c) you are deliberately lying;
d) you simply cannot bring yourself to apologise to Robert and will take
any steps necessary to avoid doing so, even to the point of making
yourself out to be a complete idiot.
Which of these is actually true is not clear to me, but as far as I can
see at least one of them must be true.
You forgot: e> NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Since Your NEED me to choose......

I choose..................
.............................................
...........................................................
e> NONE OF THE ABOVE.

++ OK. Now what more do you wish to whine about?
Robert made a statement.
He started it on a premise that was incorrect.
And I will not accept it.
End of subject.
The statement he made was that the NT had not been written at the
pertinent time
You snipped part of his statement.
Therefore, I must insist that you did it on purpose.
Was that purpose one of the below:

a) you don't understand English;
b) when your bullying is challenged you are unable to acknowledge it;
c) you are deliberately lying;
d) you simply cannot bring yourself to apologise to me....

++ I didn't hear your answer....
, and the truth of this statement *does not depend* on his
previous mildly incorrect statement.
Unless it is an integral part of the false statement.

You snipped part of his statement.
Therefore, I must insist that you did it on purpose.
Was that purpose one of the below:

a) you don't understand English;
b) when your bullying is challenged you are unable to acknowledge it;
c) you are deliberately lying;
d) you simply cannot bring yourself to apologise to me....

++ I didn't hear your answer....
The statement itself was perfectly
correct, and your mockery of it was thus without merit.
You snipped part of his statement.
Therefore, I must insist that you did it on purpose.
Was that purpose one of the below:

a) you don't understand English;
b) when your bullying is challenged you are unable to acknowledge it;
c) you are deliberately lying;
d) you simply cannot bring yourself to apologise to me....

++ I didn't hear your answer....
On the matter of your mocking Robert for his correct claim that the NT
wasn't written at the time, no, I certainly don't agree with you.
There is no one on earth who would not agree that accurate history is
written after the actual events.
Quite, which is why mocking him for saying so was so unwise.
I will do it again
You mean you would in future deliberately choose to mock correct
statements? That's very interesting. Are you trying to destroy your own
credibility, such as it is?
You snipped part of his statement.
Therefore, I must insist that you did it on purpose.
Was that purpose one of the below:

a) you don't understand English;
b) when your bullying is challenged you are unable to acknowledge it;
c) you are deliberately lying;
d) you simply cannot bring yourself to apologise to me....

++ I didn't hear your answer....
if he starts out with a lie.
Most sane people are very careful about using that word. He made a tiny
and irrelevant mistake about the number of visitations involved, but to
call it a lie is to read malice into an error without any justification.
I did read error in his statement.
And I brought it to his attention.
And you are deliberately hiding the fact that.........
You snipped part of his statement.
Therefore, I must insist that you did it on purpose.
Was that purpose one of the below:

a) you don't understand English;
b) when your bullying is challenged you are unable to acknowledge it;
c) you are deliberately lying;
d) you simply cannot bring yourself to apologise to me....

++ I didn't hear your answer....
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 16:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:43:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
The statement itself was perfectly
correct, and your mockery of it was thus without merit.
You snipped part of his statement.
Therefore, I must insist that you did it on purpose.
Yes. The part I snipped was not in dispute.

To save everybody's time, I try always to remember to snip away the
parts of a discussion on which I am not commenting (or, in many cases,
the parts that are senselessly duplicated). I leave the bits on which I
/am/ commenting. This is quite normal Usenet practice.
Post by Patrick
if he starts out with a lie.
Most sane people are very careful about using that word. He made a tiny
and irrelevant mistake about the number of visitations involved, but to
call it a lie is to read malice into an error without any justification.
I did read error in his statement.
Yes, the bit you're talking about was indeed erroneous, but the next bit
wasn't.
Post by Patrick
And I brought it to his attention.
Yes, you did, and I have no problem with the way you did that, which is
why I haven't objected to it. The problem is in how you dealt with the
/correct/ statement that followed.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:22:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:26:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:35:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:19:56 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
To disagree with Patrick makes one a 'Catholic Basher'
Yes, I have learned this. Given his stance, there must surely be plenty
of Catholics who disagree with him. Presumably they, too, are Catholic
Bashers.
You really should be careful about generalizing.
On reflection, I agree. You have, in fact, refrained (on the whole) from
using that term about /me/, even though we have disagreed a great deal.
So I take it back, and I apologise to you for that remark.
Accepted. And moved on.
Thank you. This is a small but perhaps significant oasis in our rather
large desert.
I am always willing to discuss Catholicism, our faith and dogma.
I will not allow people to bring false details into the discussion.
And your friend, robert, shouldn't either.
You obviously feel that he needs defending.

Now, I could easily ask you if you feel that robert is weak,
but I will not ask you this.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 17:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:26:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:35:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:19:56 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
To disagree with Patrick makes one a 'Catholic Basher'
Yes, I have learned this. Given his stance, there must surely be plenty
of Catholics who disagree with him. Presumably they, too, are Catholic
Bashers.
You really should be careful about generalizing.
On reflection, I agree. You have, in fact, refrained (on the whole) from
using that term about /me/, even though we have disagreed a great deal.
So I take it back, and I apologise to you for that remark.
Accepted. And moved on.
Thank you. This is a small but perhaps significant oasis in our rather
large desert.
I am always willing to discuss Catholicism, our faith and dogma.
I will not allow people to bring false details into the discussion.
Well, none of us can stop people from posting anything they like,
including false details. What we /can/ do is object to those false
details. And you did that, and I had no problem with that.
Post by Patrick
And your friend, robert, shouldn't either.
Why do you say he is my friend? I don't know the man, except from the
very limited contact we've had in this newsgroup. I have no particular
reason to dislike the man, but I tend to consider the word "friend" to
apply to lengthier and more companionable associations than pertain to a
single Usenet discussion.
Post by Patrick
You obviously feel that he needs defending.
That may be obvious to you. To me, however, it is obvious that, when a
correct statement is mocked, the mockery should be opposed.
Post by Patrick
Now, I could easily ask you if you feel that robert is weak,
but I will not ask you this.
He could in theory be a bot but, if so, he is remarkably sophisticated.
Assuming that he's not a bot, then, he is human, and therefore, like you
and like me and like everyone else here, he is weak. So?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:27:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:55:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
[In the statement that begins "You have more patience than I do",
Mattb's use of "you" refers to me, and his use of "he" refers to Patrick.]
You have more patience than I do then again he hasn't threatened to
visit you or your kids yet.
Why would I?
He has never threatened me.
He has never called my wife a whore.
Or my kids, or my grandkids.
He respects my beliefs even though he doesn't go along with them.
He has never called me a pedo.
He has never made outrageous claims about himself.
Whilst I thank you for acknowledging these points, I cannot help but be
concerned by the implication that, if I /had/ behaved in these appalling
ways, that might somehow justify you in making a physical threat against
myself or my family.
And why do you think I would ever threaten matt or his family?
On his word alone?
Well OK, if that is true, let me back out.
You may discover what matt is all by yourself.
Try to have a religious discussion with him.
So, Patrick, I'll ask you a simple, direct question. Have you in fact
threatened either Mattb or his family with physical violence?
Of course not.
In fact, I have invited matt to share a meal with me on several
occasions. On my family ranch in Montana. In Boston at two separate
restaurants - when he claimed he was visiting there at the same time I
was. And in Florida. I asked him where and when we could meet.

BTW matt says he is armed at all times.
And I have claimed I never carry a gun.

That is all I have to say about this.
Go back to cruising with matt.
Good luck to you.
My question to Mattb is: are you in a position to post evidence that
Patrick has ever made such a threat? (Such evidence might consist, for
example, of a message ID, together with the newsgroup name in which the
threatening article of posting, the thread title, and the date and time
of posting.)
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 17:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:55:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
[In the statement that begins "You have more patience than I do",
Mattb's use of "you" refers to me, and his use of "he" refers to Patrick.]
You have more patience than I do then again he hasn't threatened to
visit you or your kids yet.
Why would I?
He has never threatened me.
He has never called my wife a whore.
Or my kids, or my grandkids.
He respects my beliefs even though he doesn't go along with them.
He has never called me a pedo.
He has never made outrageous claims about himself.
Whilst I thank you for acknowledging these points, I cannot help but be
concerned by the implication that, if I /had/ behaved in these appalling
ways, that might somehow justify you in making a physical threat against
myself or my family.
And why do you think I would ever threaten matt or his family?
Good question. The accusation has been made. I didn't leap to the
conclusion that the accusation was true. I simply asked whether it was true.
Post by Patrick
So, Patrick, I'll ask you a simple, direct question. Have you in fact
threatened either Mattb or his family with physical violence?
Of course not.
Thanks for that very clear response.
Post by Patrick
BTW matt says he is armed at all times.
Maybe MattB will respond to that. I'm not in a position to know either way.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:29:11 UTC
Permalink
<nonsense snipped>
Let it go.....
Isn't there a song about this?
Grow up and let it go.
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:30:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:12:12 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:19:11 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.
I think we can leave it right there.
Which means you couldn't even understand the rest of my post.
No. It means that I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with
someone who doesn't understand the importance of tenses in conveying
meaning.
Well, you're right. With your attitude, discussion is not possible for the
1. Jesus didn't speak English. The bible is many steps removed from the
original language. Thus you are relying on what translator thought he read.
We were not talking about the words of Jesus, but the words of St Paul.
?????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?????
???? ??????? ???? ???? ????????.
Thus you understand that 2017 verb tense, etc were not in Paul's words.
What are you talking about? Before you replaced that Greek quote with
question marks, it was a direct quote from St Paul.
Your post showed up with all the ??????????????
Ah, fair enough. I didn't know that. It was a direct quote from the
oldest koine Greek source we have for the relevant text, and my
newsreader handled it just fine, but of course not all newsreaders can
handle stuff like that.
No point in posting it again because your newsreader would do the same
thing again to it.
Thank you and thank GOD.
Patrick
2017-01-23 16:32:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:36:38 +0000, Richard Heathfield
And I realise you say that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, but the
words in question are those of St Paul, not those of Jesus, so the
objection doesn't apply to the case.
Do you or have you ever spoken a foreign language?
Do you understand that not everything translates perfectly?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 17:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:36:38 +0000, Richard Heathfield
And I realise you say that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, but the
words in question are those of St Paul, not those of Jesus, so the
objection doesn't apply to the case.
Do you or have you ever spoken a foreign language?
Yes.
Post by Patrick
Do you understand that not everything translates perfectly?
Yes. Do /you/ understand that today's Biblical translators are really,
really, really good at their job?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 16:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:31:28 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
- God /does/ forgive Christians who, having sinned, seek His
forgiveness. I think the Bible's teaching on this is abundantly clear,
and I have posted examples of that teaching in this thread.
Absolutely.
I believe this with all my heart.
God loves us always.
And He wants to forgive our sins.
If we truly repent.
Right.

<snip>
Post by Patrick
Then we are re-treading old ground. I have laid out the Biblical
justification for my position, so there's no point in re-posting it.
Yes, I know.
And you certainly know my position.
Quite so.

<snip>
Post by Patrick
One day a serpent came to Eve and questioned her. Eve knew that the
Tree’s fruit was not to eaten, or else she would die. The serpent
stirred up doubt in Eve by asking if God had really given such an
instruction.
This is a common trick. Several times when I have been given the
clearest possible direction, the very next thought to pop into my head
is "Did God /really/ say that?" Other Christians have told me that they,
too, have experienced this.
I'm not sure of your point.
I was amplifying (agreeing with and giving an illustration of) your
point about the serpent.
Post by Patrick
Let us agree to disagree about the OSAS doctrine.
Sure. It'll save us both a lot of time.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 17:26:47 UTC
Permalink
On 22/01/17 18:08, Robert wrote:

<snip>
I notice how you sided with the pope against our president.
I think quite a few people are rather concerned about your president,
and I'm definitely one of them. This has nothing to do with politics. I
couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether you guys vote Republican or
Democrat. But Mr Trump worries me.

If my concerns will turn out to be groundless, nobody will more pleased
than me --- but I'm not hopeful.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
unknown
2017-01-23 19:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
I think quite a few people are rather concerned about your president,
and I'm definitely one of them. This has nothing to do with politics. I
couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether you guys vote Republican or
Democrat. But Mr Trump worries me.
This brins back memories, and I like the way you avoided a misunderstood
phrase not used in polite company.

The phrase is "not worth a tinker's dam". Noting the sound alike word.

It was a clay mold a tinker used to shape molten metal. Once the metal
cooled it was broken to reveal the shaped metal piece. At which time it
had no value,ie. "not worth a tinker's dam".

As a child I too was admonished not to use the phrase, people generally
don't know its origin
and avoiding it does no harm.

It is easly confused with "damn" as in to curse as might a pagan practice
something or someone.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 20:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Richard Heathfield
I think quite a few people are rather concerned about your president,
and I'm definitely one of them. This has nothing to do with politics. I
couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether you guys vote Republican or
Democrat. But Mr Trump worries me.
This brins back memories, and I like the way you avoided a misunderstood
phrase not used in polite company.
The phrase is "not worth a tinker's dam". Noting the sound alike word.
That may be a cross-pondian difference. In the UK, "tinker's cuss" is
common (and very mild). "Cuss" is, I think, used far more often in the
USA than in the UK (we use "swear" to mean the same thing), but this is
one of those contexts in which the UK /does/ use the word "cuss". I've
never heard of either "tinker's damn" or "tinker's dam", so I wasn't
trying to avoid anything.

In any case, "damn" is very common in the UK and is considered very,
very mild. A particularly prudish mother might object to her children
saying it, but most people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

What's more, given the context (Donald Trump), I think we have far more
important things to worry about!

Nevertheless, I did find the etymological explanation interesting.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-23 17:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
Is richard still whining?
If he wishes to accept that one angel visited Joseph and Mary at the
same time, then he can go pound sand. That simply is not true.
Yes, we all know that, Patrick. That wasn't what I was talking about, as
I have made abundantly clear on many occasions. You continue to dodge
away from the real reason for my objection, which again I have made
abundantly clear.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Robert
2017-01-23 17:57:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:55:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
My question to Mattb is: are you in a position to post evidence that
Patrick has ever made such a threat? (Such evidence might consist, for
example, of a message ID, together with the newsgroup name in which the
threatening article of posting, the thread title, and the date and time
of posting.)
I can testify to the fact of what Patrick did over a long period of
time, and he threatened me as well, but then found out he could not
locate me and complained about that as well.

This does not justify all of Matt's behaviors, but then OTH Matt did
apologize and offer room for other apology's based on Patrick's
behaviors, which was declined by Patrick. Patrick has defamed Matt's
parents in numerous ways, naming certain people as Matt's parents but
posting no proof.

It is all a very sick story with the weight of it going against
Patrick.

Patrick threatens everyone he does not like at one point or another.
When Patrick gives his word on something it is only of value until his
next post, unless it is tied into hatred. It is so bad that even when
he says something that appears nice I no longer trust his thoughts.

Sad, but true.
Patrick
2017-01-23 20:09:31 UTC
Permalink
True but you made threats against another mans kids. So he used his
skills and had a threat assessment done. Face it you are stupid at
times.
True but you made threats against another mans kids. So he used his
skills and had a threat assessment done. Face it you are stupid at
times.
These are your words, not mine.
Get over it.
Yes and do you have a point? You have removed it from the context
also.
So what is your point Patrick Barker.??
Look back through the thread.
I Mean I don't recall ever saying such. Can you provide a message ID?
Was that about the word "order" Context Patrick?
Who cares.
You claimed you never said something.
You did say it.
I proved it.
No are using a quote from me and is in reply to saying I called your
daughter a whore. Bad mother and teacher yes but not a whore.
You never did provide the Message ID as I requested. WHY because you
lied AGAIN.
Because I don't do your legwork for you.
Shaddup, liar.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...