>Subject: [ijccr] Digest Number 1132
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
>Subject: Re: The sincere televangelist

You know, monitoring messages such as this is like
going to a freak show or the zoo: it's entertainment.
One thing you will seldom see here is rational
behavior or discussion.
If you think there is any logical connection between
Robertson's comments regarding Chavez and the previous
messages in this thread, you simply demonstrate your
inability to think.
And that you demonstrate very well.
You hate filled little pissant.

--- Stan Szopa <sszopa@...> wrote:
> =93=85You know, I don=92t know about this doctrine of
> assassination, but if he thinks we=92re trying to
> assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead
> and do it. It=92s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war
> - Pat Robertson (American televangelist).
> Stan: In my previous e =96 mail:
> Before, it was land from Indians and now crude oil
> from Iraqis
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ijccr/message/4182
> I wasn=92t wrong after all. Was I, William?
[snipped]
---

>Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:31:22 -0000
>From: "prdumais" <paul@...>
>Subject: Re: The sincere televangelist

Discovering the basic principles that inform the moral
attitudes of those we are in discussion with is always a
useful activity. I am already getting a good idea about who
Stan and William are. This is good.

I would be interested to know if William agrees with those
comments made by Pat Robertson and state the moral
principles backing up his answer. Anyone else can feel free
to comment and provide answers.

Other questions that I would like answered:
Do we not have more control over our own crimes than those
of others? If yes does this obligate us to do something
about them? Can you hate the policies of American leaders
without hating America? Is it ethical to only concentrate on
punishing the crimes of others when our own crimes are not
only easier to influence, but also on a greater and more
damaging scale? Paul
---

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:19:36 +1200
>From: James Samuel <jmsinnz@...>
>Subject: A question of content
Dear Friends,
I am very interested in the CC issues - and also matters of
social, environmental and political importance. My question
is whether we should be mixing them up via this particular
group?
I subscribe to a number of excellent groups and mailing
lists that keep me informed on these other issues, and was
hoping to get specific CC information through this group.
How do others feel about this? Is there a policy in place
relative to the nature of the content posted here?
Gently enquiring, James
---

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Stan Szopa <sszopa@...>
>Subject: A question of content
On Sun Sep 4, 2005 2:19 pm James Samuel jmsinnz@... wrote:

=93=85I subscribe to a number of excellent groups and
mailing lists that keep me informed on these other
issues, and was hoping to get specific CC information
through this group=85=94

Stan: There are friends who are taking risk and are writing
about broader issues that are influencing an implementation
progress of the CC and there are few who are waiting for
ready answers and they don=92t even ask question what they
want to know=85 they are only =93Gently enquiring=94 =96
FOLLOW THE RULES! Best regards, Stan
-------------------------------

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Stan Szopa <sszopa@...>
>Subject: The sincere televangelis

w_b_ryan@... wrote:
=93=85you simply demonstrate your inability to think=85 You
hate filled little puissant=85=94

Stan: William don=92t you think that it is personal attack?
Let=92s muscle issues and let=92s personal attacks leave to
a narrow-minded jerks. Best regards, Stan
---

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 07:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
Subject: Re: The sincere televangelis

It is indeed a personal attack, against you, you
fucking little pissant.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that supplies
forums like this to ranting idiots, who in earlier
times would have been institutionalized.
They can bang their drums and completely snuff out
rational discussion. Like you have.
---

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:36:50 -0700
>From: ernie yacub <yacinfo@...>
>Subject: Re: The sincere televangelis

instead of flaming and involving the rest of us in trying to
deal with the war that ensues, delete or filter posts that
you find objectionable. ernie
---

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Stan Szopa <sszopa@...>
>Subject: The sincere televangelis

On Mon Sep 5, 2005 9:36 am ernie yacub <yacinfo@...>
=93=85instead of flaming and involving the rest of us in
trying to deal with the war that ensues, delete or filter
posts that you find objectionable. Ernie=85=94

Stan: I agree. It won=92t happen again.
Best regards, Stan
---

>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:01:06 +0200
>From: "Swieto Radosci" <radosc@...>
>Subject: Fw: The sincere televangelis

Who is hate filled, interesting... I support the advice of
ernie, especially since I filter correspondence sent by
William B. Ryan to socialcredit group.
When I saw angrily emotions expressed by him in many posts,
I decided not to see them any more... My choice. Kristof

JCT: I think Bill Ryan is either an agent provocateur sent
in to give Social Credit a bad name or he's a lunatic. He's
been causing so much trouble that I've decided to add the
link to my debates with him to my home page debates section:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan00.htm

He's the guy who screamed around the internet how I wasn't a
qualified engineer because I wouldn't prove it to him and I
didn't want to respond until he put his money where his
mouth was. He would never bet that he was right, never has,
but after continued mouthing off, I finally posted it at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/diploma.jpg
That shut him up.

Anyway, when you read our debates, you'll see that
technically, he's a lunatic. So how could be be sane in
other areas.

It's sad to say that he has managed to obtain some control
over the venerable Social Credit movement making it a lot
less venerable than it used to be.

I can only warn you that soberly talking to a lunatic
doesn't look good on any of us. I beat up his brain so badly
that I've got it out of my system and no longer respond. And
I can understand the reluctance not to respond.

So I'd urge anyone who does respond to keep noting my Ryan
debates which should convince anyone that we're not dealing
with someone playing with a full deck.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics