From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunters needed
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:08:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters

In article <BvGpu4.JvI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> What purpose was served by your comment?     Did the label, "idiot",
>rl> have any meaning?  Or, was it just a thoughtless insult?

>From article <1afj0gINN729@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> It's very simple Russell.  See if you can understand.  I posted my 
>ml> opinion of what I thought of the Udo and her questions.  It was not
>ml> aimed to please you and if it does not, I suggest you come to grips
>ml> with the fact that I don't care.

>Mike, I realize that it was your opinion.  What I still don't 
>understand is how a person like yourself, who apparently accepts 
>many beliefs without any scrutiny whatsoever, is qualified to 
>identify the "idiocy" of others.   It seems to me that you ought
>to identify "idiocy" by the absence of reason, and not simply by the
>fact that someone else's beliefs may differ from the beliefs that you
>yourself have blindly accepted.


Ok, now we know you don't understand how I am qualified.  Great.  Now
we know where you stand and I will say that I don't care if you understand
and we will leave it at that.  


>ml> Well, as I said before, I do not feel I need to justify or 
>ml> explain my beleifs to you.  You obviously enjoy ridiculing them 
>ml> and I have no desire to listen to your arrogance anymore.  For 
>ml> the record you should know that the verse you quote is from the 
>ml> Old Testament and Christians no longer live under those laws.  
>ml> The New Testament holds God's laws from the time of Jesus until 
>ml> now.  So, you chance to make me and my religion look foolish has 
>ml> again failed.  There is no more "eye for an eye".  That was valid 
>ml> before the New Testament.  

>So what you're saying is that your "god" apparently changed his mind
>and is now more tolerant of the thoughts and feelings of people who
>don't think the way you think.   When did this occur, BTW?  To the
>best of my knowledge, christians were burning and hanging witches 
>well into the 17th century.   Now if it's true that "god" no longer
>encourages witch-killing, is it possible that "god" has also changed
>his mind about the ways we (mis)treat animals?


You read the Bible and make your own conclusions Russell.  It is not
up to me to tell you what the Bible says.  Your interpretation may be
different.  However, you are in no position to tell me my interpretations
are incorrect.


>rl> Please clarify your views if you think I've misrepresented you.

>ml> I *know* you have misrepresented me.  For instance, I never said 
>ml> to you that I feel killing any human was justified unless I was 
>ml> told by GOD and he would not do that because these are not the 
>ml> times of the Old Testament.  You would like to pretend that I 
>ml> would go around rounding up "witchs" and kill them.  Your 
>ml> ignorance of my beliefs is only surpassed by your malicious- 
>ml> ness.  

>Let me repeat a question that you answered previously via email:
>If "god" told you to kill a group of innocent men, women, and 
>children without explaining the reasons, would you comply?  Or 
>would you disobey?  


Another quiz by Russell.  I've already told you that I will not subject
my beliefs to ridicule by you.  We already know that you don't believe in
God, you think that you are the only critical thinker who has given thought
to any subject and you can't understand why everybody isn't like you.  I'm
sure there has been violent crimes committed by an ex-hunter, ex-construct-
ion worker that lives in New Orleans just like yourself.  If this were true
would it be up to you to explain the actions of a person that has so much in 
with you?  I don't think so, nor do I think I need to explain the actions of
every person who has religious beliefs?  


>ml> No need to Russell.  I can represent my views better than you can and
>ml> to tell the truth, I don't trust that you wouldn't alter them to suit
>ml> your argument.  Sorry old boy but, that's what it has come to.

>Gee, I was hoping you'd give me permission to clear up my alleged
>"misrepresentations" by citing some of your previous email comments.


You are not on trial here Russell.  Deny all you want.  I and at least a
few others on t.p.a. know exactly where you are coming from.


>rl> BTW, are you still hoping that "god" will ask you to "bust" my ribs?

>ml> If you will recall, I didn't say this.  What I said was something 
>ml> to the effect that I would enjoy doing so after you continually 
>ml> belittled my religious beliefs by claiming I said to you I 
>ml> believe in goblins and such.  I also told you as much I as would 
>ml> enjoy it, I would not do so because of my beliefs.  Are you still 
>ml> threatening or promising to make your way to the San Francisco 
>ml> Bay Area so that we can meet?  Are you still practicing the 
>ml> martial arts you told me about?  

>You seem to be confused, Mike.  However, I suppose it's a sign of 
>progress that "god" has apparently decided to refrain from encouraging
>your fantasies of violence.  


You seem to *think* I'm confused but, once again you are wrong.  I don't
enjoy violence but arrogant people such as yourself have the ability to
push me to my limits.  You did a good job of talking yourself up so I'm 
sure you have nothing to worry about from me.  I think the best way to
handle the situation is to limit my exposure to you.  Therefore you will
find I will no longer play your games that you are so good at.  You will
not doubt claim that I am afraid to play your game and try to use my
decision against me but you may notice that I really don't care.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan










Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals