h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"(Was Della then, am not Della now, why is that so hard for you to understand, Henry? )

No I fully understand what you want to be called now. If senility hasnt got the better of you you'll remeber I made a peace deal with you to call you Vicky from that point on if you didnt restart hostilities and drag up the past.

You managed to that up within a couple of days.


I also fully understand that you dont want to be known by the name associated with you posting of racist abuse and the posting of death threats amongst other anti-social behaviour you are rightgully ashamed of but unfotunately wont take responsibility for.

I on the other hand stand by everything Ive dont and dont mind being called Henry, if that makes you happy please do continue.



Here's a heads up if you are stupid enough to keep responding to a name you dont like, because Im guessing you cant bare the thought of losing an argument you have already lost a long time ago, then people will keep calling it you.

Now who's the obssesive one again

one love

Goodness only knows why, but I re-read all the posts about the "racist abuse" from way back in 2003, and I was quite shocked to discover just how it has led to your obsession (10 mouse clicks is 9 more than I would bother doing in your circumstances, especially as *I* am on dial-up at home...

The "racist abuse", of course wasn't. I apologised years ago, even though it was all only ever a misunderstanding over the differing meanings of a word in NZ, and the USA (and your choice to glom on to the American meaning - I gather the word isn't even in use where you live..)

I apologised in 2003, which didn't stop Hoo from screeching for an apology, and hounding, pursuing and harassing me for 4 years over it. I discovered an early post where he damns me as feminist - who knew? I always thought his hysterical hatred was for other reasons!

Upshot is, Henry, I am not obsessed with you. You and Hoo however, it's another matter entirely. I am so fed up with you and this is (except for future unforeseen circumstances) honestly, the last time I bother.


<>

That's a real Hoo tactic, to claim to have made a promise not to harass someone, and then, when breaking it, claim to have been forced into breaking the promise by the *other* person's behaviour (real or imagined.) You learned from the master! (Funny that - he *is* so much like the master - the Anthony Ainley one, I think).

Speaking of familiar tactics, I see you've once again avoided any real discussion, especially one that challenges you, by turning this thread into your personal vehicle for abuse and recrimination.

For the record, though, there was a question on the table...once again:

<<<>>

Hi Vicky,

To get back to the point:

In the Catholic Church the version used is the Douay-Rheims Bible consisting of 73 books (am I right here Andrew, my Catholic knowledge is getting rusty). In the Protestant church only the 66 books approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible, are used. No other books, neither the Apocrypha, which was included in the original King James Bible, nor the 22 books mentioned or quoted in the King James Bible, are considered inspired.

The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forces. The language of the King James Bible is obscure and limited. Thus those books, letters and epistles that did not suit the translators were dropped.

Indeed there was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century AD.

Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible.

Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible.

We have ended up with an incomplete view of the events of the New Testament in particular, and with a grouping of texts that have been chosen by Men for Men so no wonder they often come across as mysogynist. And not just ordinary men, but Men in Power who had everything to gain from reinforcing the parts of the Bible that keep the general populace meek and in a state of subjection through the dangling of an eternal hope of better to come. If you want no evidence just look at the editor of the KJV - King James, a man convinced of the Divine Right of Kings - we can really see what he wanted can't we?

Thus the ordinary Christian is left with a pick'n'mix Bible, edited by the powerful to reinforce their power. It frequently contradicts itself, is fallible in so many places it makes me wince to read it and has held the poor and needy Jesus was supposed to rescue, still poor and still needy.

I doubt that if your Jesus came back today he would recognise a word of it. So much for being divinely inspired Word of God. None of you are Christians because none of you have a clue about the truth of what really went on in those first years. Churches, Kings and men of power have made sure of that.

Sad really.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

"Goodness only knows why, but I re-read all the posts about the "racist abuse" from way back in 2003, and I was quite shocked to discover just how it has led to your obsession (10 mouse clicks is 9 more than I would bother doing in your circumstances, especially as *I* am on dial-up at home...

Goodness only knows eh?

And yet you did it all the same how many clicks and how long did it take you on dial-up because you must have dont it yourself as the link I left was for a totally different thread?

"Upshot is, Henry, I am not obsessed with you.

The evidence you put in your own post which I have just C+Ped above says different. Its not the first time and I doubt it will be the las tthat the eviddence available on this very site proves you to be making things up.

"The "racist abuse", of course wasn't. I apologised years ago, even though it was all only ever a misunderstanding over the differing meanings of a word in NZ, and the USA (and your choice to glom on to the American meaning

If it wasnt racist abuse why did the MODs remove it? If it ws merely a misunderstanding why didnt you simply explain, you apologized, a rarity in itself, but as usual you tried to absolve yourself for any responsibility. Shame.

"I gather the word isn't even in use where you live..)

Gather...from where? Who's giving you duff information now? Let me tell you as someone who lives where I do. It is, unfotunately, used where I live.


"That's a real Hoo tactic, to claim to have made a promise not to harass someone, and then, when breaking it, claim to have been forced into breaking the promise by the *other* person's behaviour (real or imagined.)

I offered you a deal a cuople of pagesd back on this thread I think, if you are obsessive youcan make the mouse clicks to prove me wrong, that I mad ethe deal on another thread, its up to you.

Anyway the deal was offered and respected by me and others like Math and one person broke it.

You say you want this to end and want to leave it behind. You know Im like a dog with a lock jaw but you went started raking over the coals.

Now you're unhappy with the out come.

God alone knows the rights and wrongs of all this.

Or not!

Ok let's try and sort this out shall we?

Blicky's call for peace in post 26834 went as follows:

"Hi Vicky,
Lets stop playing blame games then I will do all I can, which is to make a genuine plea to you and the others involved to suspend name calling, any mention of educated guesses at the psychiological condition of others, claims about their status or otherwise.
This goes for all involved.
You will not declaim to know more about a subject than I, and I wil not do the saem to you.
I will ask Math to use the name you are posting under or at the very least your Unumber.
We will all try to give summaries of articles we are linking to and not demand that others read them
We will refer people to previous answers as best we can and not simply say I hav answered that question ie. "I answered that X months ago in the "abc" thread".
We will all attempt to "live in the now", while not forgetting the past accept the principle that going on an on about the past isnt always the best way to a better future."

I thought that this was a genuine and good call.

To which Vicky replied in 26835:
"Essentially, yes, of course! (Once I get over the shock of you being the peacemaker! ) "

Woohoo! progress at last as the Blicky Roadmap began to roll...

And I added in 26841:
"Hi Vicky
Out of respect for Blicky's peacemaking I will stop calling you Della, as long as you respond by beginning to give straight answers..."

...and went on to questions about scripture.

There was some simultaneous discussion over the threats of identity exposure which seemed to be in contravention of the last line of the Blicky Roadmap, but was started by a new arrival to the thread, not by the established combatants.

It soon all fell apart as Vicky declaimed that everyone was out to get her, and descended into a series of posts justifying it.

Blicky didn't attack her but found it hard not to respond to some barbs thrown his way by Vicky, with some facts that Vicky would prefer not resurface about her behaviour in years past.

I have continued to try and engage Vicky in debate on scriptural matters, going into some effort to explain my case against the Bible in general and Paul in particular with some small success.

Perhaps we can all remember that this is a debate about theology and leave all the personal stuff at the door. If anyone wants to continue the arguments about who did what to whom can they begin a new thread and invite their fellow combatants to go there and vent spleens.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Well put, Math....

Now...to the discussion. I repeat in an effort to refresh your memory...VICKY:

<>

Please refer to my message centre under the heading ARE YOU UNAWARE (that)...

THAT'S the level of discussion you'll get from this one

As Math almost said..."Don't let the door hit you on the ... on your way out..."

I might not be Christian or any other factual religion at all, but still I consider god as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Why do people mistkae God for a human being, when say try to grasp "God's ways"? God's not human.

Keep caring.
Scip'

<< Why do people mistake God for a human being, when say try to grasp "God's ways"? God's not human.>.

Exactly right!

Vicky

Any God is the creation of Mankind, a dulling of revaluation and master of control. Religion is the law enforcer for the subconscious.
Believe in us and take responsibility for what we do. We can be good or we can be bad, whichever we choose belongs to us. Just stand up and be counted for our mistakes and applaud ourselves for the good decisions we make. Lets stop looking out wards for the answers but in wards for our responsibility.

Well it makes sense to me.

<>

Perhaps you're correct. But then maybe you're wrong.

Mikey2

"Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible.

Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible. "

Yet, it is not as if these apocryphs (I believe they're called) are lost and forbidden. I'd bet that any library of a theological faculty has most of them.


..and to the issue of God being a creation of Mankind: What if? What if they aren't? I think God is just another explanation for some fundamental "where is the sense in everything?"-concept. Some others might refer to "the Power of Love" others might call it gravity or quantum*. A God is simply much more easier to explain, imagine and to talk about, to relate to. God is a reason behind things.

* e.g. Some say God makes things fall down, others hold that undescribable entity called gravitation responsible.

Keep caring
Scip'

My word; four years later, and it's still going on.

I came here on a whim for the first time in months, thinking that I might return for a spell, but I barely have time for the drama in my own life, never mind the virtual histrionics which all but obliterated my enthusiasm for a site I once loved. Sorry guys, but this stuff was, and remains, deeply uncool and totally not fun. I don't plan on subjecting myself to it again.

Leaving that aside, I hope you're all enjoying yourselves and in good health.

— Jordan

A newby to the site, check out Robert Graves take on Hope refference to Pandorar's Box (Please excuse spelling mildly dyslexic and too lazy to find reading glasses and dictionary)

You mean as in "There's no hope. Pandora took the money"?





Non-British readers under 40 won't understand that I suspect.


F

To urn is human. Critical thinking 101. or look before one leaps.

this has been going for years, right!? respect

-this has been going for years, right!?-

Do you mean the thread or the debate? One's been going on for millennia.