What's going on ??

[AgingYoung]

I'd also like to say, Jim, that your last post might be considered offensive. I've already made the point that I don't mind because I think those sorts of posts tell more about the poster than the one they're commenting on. I also noticed that you felt you had something to say and you said it. The point that you used the point of being offensive to make the point of others being offensive wasn't lost on me this time as it wasn't the last time you did that.

I need to know something, Jim. What gives you the right to (1) speak your mind when you want to and (2) put your opinion in the terms you do and (3) to play the hypocrite? What ever gives you that right is the same right I claim. I suspect we should have the same rights. That's my hunch. I also don't think you're playing the hypocrite; I think that's your character.

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

Sounds like another "difference of opinion" breaking out here.


Anyway, Ralph wrote:

One can devote their entire life in a pursuit of their choosing and not be considered fanatic. As your Churchhill quote states a fanatic is one who will not change the subject and keeps harping on it at every chance possible.

Well, I guess in the final analysis a "fanatic" is really in the eye of the beholder. I think that since the word has come to have a negative connotation, many people use it to label those whose ideas / behavior they disapprove of. When used thusly, it is usually a put down intended to embarass the fanatical person into believing / behaving in a manner more acceptable to the person who made the pronouncement.

If, on the other hand, one approves of a person's ideas / behavior, then, rather than use the word "fanatic" to describe him, one will describe them as "dedicated", "energetic", or "passionate". These all have positive connotations associated with them. I know that I would rather be described as "passionate" about the subjects I pursue, than fanatical about them.

For example, when terrorists blow themselves and some innocent bystanders up, the survivors of the attack would most likely describe the terrorists as fanatics. On the other hand, the other terrrorists that set up the attack (but did not blow themselves up, of course) would describe the dead terrorists as very courageous and devout people. Or, as I heard someone once state, "One country's terrorist is another country's patriot".

I believe everybody has a right to express their opinions, but, on the other hand, I personally consider it "bad form" to do so in a manner that insults the other person or belittles their beliefs. Most of the people on planet Earth would probably not agree with all of my beliefs and neither would I with theirs. But, we all have to live on the same dust speck in the cosmos and try to get along. Over time, the correct opinions will, eventually, gain wide acceptance and the incorrect ones will fade from the scene... Hopefully, this will not happen to the story of Bessler even if we are never successful in solving the mystery he left behind.


ken

[jim_mich]

Gene,

It seems that my point went WAY over the top of your head. So I'll dumb it down to your level.

You were discussing situations where others affect what one says. You stated if you let someone else edit your thoughts and words then one of you isn't necessary. You talked about a person's right to express themselves as they see fit. I came back explaining why and where one SHOULD let others edit their thoughts and words. I questioned whether you were an intelligent gentleman that refrained from speaking and doing certain things in certain situations as I think gentleman should. I questioned whether the opposite be true, that you didn't have enough intelligence or that you have such an exaggerated sense of self-importance to the point that you feel you have a right to say whatever you want anytime and anywhere you feel like it.

You stated that not too many people here agree with that idea. By not too many I mean no one. I'm amazed. Then you implied it Could be a lot of married, henpecked men on this forum. I simply responded that intelligent people know what is appropriate to talk about and when to be quiet. That is what being a gentleman is all about. The trouble is that all that I said went over the top of your head. You didn't get my point.

My point is that intelligent gentlemen don't talk about certain things when in certain company. They let others 'edit' their words. When someone refuses to let others 'edit' their words in certain situations and insists on acting in an ungentlemanly fashion contrary to the desires of others then I question that persons intelligence.

You responded by calling me a bigot.

[AgingYoung]

Jim,

You responded by calling me a bigot.

Precisely. I see you get the point. You want to narrow discussion by excluding points with a religious perspective. It did amaze me that no one was offended by the idea of having a few curtail the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

As I mentioned earlier you are comparing fine granny smith apples baked in a cookie crust with vanilla ice cream melting on it (a person's right to determine when they want to make a comment and the terms they use) to stewed turnips with pork (slapping someone that disagrees with you or running naked thru the park) You also have reinforced my suspicion of your character by changing the subject (freedom of speech) with your offensive ad hominem attacks (if you were an intelligent gentleman you'd agree). If you really were half as intelligent as you imagine you could make a point without having to use the same tactic that you're attacking (being offensive). That's not too bright.

I fail to see how your points are intelligent or your effort to limit discussion or the timing of it as gentlemanly. It is bigoted or narrow minded of you. I do notice that you say what's on your mind and when you want to. You can believe I'll do likewise. You're efforts although lame are commendable and vastly superior to the girlie man's regression to their pre-verbal nappied childhood when their point was questioned (buzzz buzzz).

Gene

[rlortie]

Gene,

How cum yu don't talkum wheelie talk no more. Did yu-al findum the same powful stuf like robert acted as tho he was a taken.

Becha i culd find yu a 4um over at that yahoo grup thatle satisfie yual. it aint a far fech from here niehter. just about a rite smart distant as the crow flis.

dummin down

[ovyyus]

LMAO Ralph.

Isn't it interesting how a bigot only wants democratic process when it agrees with their fanatical personal viewpoint. The conceited moron, and his click-group elitist brethren, still cry like babies after the majority of participating forum members here have already agreed that free expression of personal religious belief's should be restricted to the Off-Topic forum.

It's just like a bigot to discount the voice of the participating majority only when it opposes their personal fanatical point of view - and then claim that democracy is dead when no one agrees with them or when they can't get their way. What a bad joke this horrible little man is.

Buzzzzz buzzzzz - SWAT!

[rlortie]

Ken,

Well, I guess in the final analysis a "fanatic" is really in the eye of the beholder

No it is usually considered the ear of anyone who will by choice or restrained to be subjected to the repetitive ranting as displayed here.

Not to long ago (I must admit) I thought Gene had a head on his shoulders, gave him a green hit and now find it with reluctance to say, even recommended him for a private forum. about three days later I withdrew that recommendation and took back my green hit. then a few more days passed I gave him a red one. It has been downhill since.

Now he will hit my red, if hasn't already, and probably put me back down to where I was when Robert had me in the barrel. :o)

Ralph

[scott]

For (many) obvious reasons this topic has been moved to the Off-Topic forum.

[AgingYoung]

Girlie man,

I really have no problem with your views or your right to express them. I've often said that. As a matter of fact I'm still waiting for you to support this ignorant view of yours:

On the matter of separating religion and science... religious fanatics will try to use science (or anything else) as a tool to aggressively dominate the belief's of others - BOOM!. Science and religion should be separated because religious fanaticism (a dangerous form of elitism) can not be entrusted with the wellbeing of all people.

Give an example of how that's occurred on this forum.

Ralph,

Gene,

How cum yu don't talkum wheelie talk no more. Did yu-al findum the same powful stuf like robert acted as tho he was a taken.


Becha i culd find yu a 4um over at that yahoo grup thatle satisfie yual. it aint a far fech from here niehter. just about a rite smart distant as the crow flis.

dummin down

The current build is promising yet I'm not interested in discussing it. I'm impressed that you could put several sentences together. Keep up the good work.

Gene

ps edit:

Not to long ago (I must admit) I thought Gene had a head on his shoulders, gave him a green hit and now find it with reluctance to say, even recommended him for a private forum.

That was really kind of you, Ralph. Since the material on this forum belongs to the copyright holder I don't want to publish a lot of my ideas here.

Reservation of Rights
We reserve all of our rights, including but not limited to any and all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other proprietary right that we may have in our web site, its content, and the goods and services that may be provided.

[AgingYoung]

Isn't it interesting how a bigot only wants democratic process when it agrees with their fanatical personal viewpoint. The conceited moron, and his click-group elitist brethren, still cry like babies after the majority of participating forum members here have already agreed that free expression of personal religious belief's should be restricted to the Off-Topic forum.

What is interesting, girlie man, is that you were berating religion in an area that wasn't off topic and you imagined you had that right yet when someone defended the rights of others to express their opinions from a biblical perspective you begin to cry like a baby. The hypocrisy is blatant.

Gene

ps edit: as I've said I have no problem with your contrary opinions. What I do object to is your insistent demand for more rights than others as I've pointed out above. And as I previously noted your hypocrisy is blatant. Your most objectional opinions are the ones that aren't fact based. I've given you every opportunity to base your opinions in fact. I also understand you can't because there are no facts to support your contrived supposition. If that's not the case then provide a fact.

[ovyyus]

If the bigot could just realise that expression of opinion contrary to its own is the right of all free thinking individuals... but the bigot can not see any other point of view. Poor lonely bigot.

Gene honey, did your mommy not love you enough, is that why you're a conceited bigot?


EDIT: If the bad bigot Gene insists on amending it's posts after a response has been made, to the point that it's amended posts do not at all resemble it's originally posted garbage, then I will have to quote the original bad bigot Gene post in all my future responses. Poor form, even for a desperate bigot.

PS:

Since the material on this forum belongs to the copyright holder I don't want to publish a lot of my ideas here.

You're accusation that Scott wishes to own your pathetic garbage is just ridiculous - what an insult!

[AgingYoung]

I didn't want to add another post to this thread so I edited the previous post. It's not an accuasation that Scott owns the material in this forum; it's merely a statement of fact.

Concerning the nature of my thoughts on God and perpetual motion it's not knowable by anyone their merit in as much as I've kept them to myself.

Although I amended the post I added to it; I in no way changed the meaning that was there.

Girly man,

Anytime you want to base your opinion in fact feel free to do it. The particular opinion I'm interested in is:

On the matter of separating religion and science... religious fanatics will try to use science (or anything else) as a tool to aggressively dominate the belief's of others - BOOM!. Science and religion should be separated because religious fanaticism (a dangerous form of elitism) can not be entrusted with the wellbeing of all people.

Give an example of how that's occurred on this forum. Can you cite an example of this blarney or are you making things up so you can aggressively force your perspective on others? You seem to be the one that wants to aggressively force your (narrow) perspective on others. Could you kindly give an example from this forum to support your ignorant (2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED) supposition?

Gene

[ovyyus]

Gene, you must be a moron - or something. There are so many examples in the World (that strange place outside your little bigot head) of fanatical religious groups that use science to try to force their belief's upon others. Rather than cite you examples, do a little research on your own. You never know, it could be a turning point for you, buddy.

How weak to think you can invalidate my statement by trying to limit its context only to this forum, which was clearly never intended in the first place - just like a bigot to try to twist things to suit their own personal agenda and then hope that it might fly as 'sound reasoning' - lol

Now that I've answered you, perhaps you will answer me, "Gene honey, did your mommy not love you enough, is that why you're a conceited bigot?". There's got to be a reason for it - and I'm obviously partial to a mystery. Perhaps if you can root out the primary underlying cause of your bigotry you will then be able to address it and move on with your life. I'm here for you buddy - lmao

[AgingYoung]

I'm going to have to run this one thru the BS processor:

Gene, you must be a moron - or something. There are so many examples in the World (that strange place outside your little bigot head) of fanatical religious groups that use science to try to force their belief's upon others. Rather than cite you examples, do a little research on your own. You never know, it could be a turning point for you, buddy.

How weak to think you can invalidate my statement by trying to limit its context only to this forum, which was clearly never intended in the first place - just like a bigot to try to twist things to suit their own personal agenda and then hope that it might fly as 'sound reasoning' - lol

Now that I've answered you, perhaps you will answer me, "Gene honey, did your mommy not love you enough, is that why you're a conceited bigot?". There's got to be a reason for it - and I'm obviously partial to a mystery. Perhaps if you can root out the primary underlying cause of your bigotry you will then be able to address it and move on with your life. I'm here for you buddy - lmao

The point in this thread began with:

Thanks for that reply Patrick, it has cleared things up. You're not the religiously twisted guy that I assumed or even may have tried to portray you as.
In case anyone assumes that I'm an atheist, I'm not. I believe in God to the extent that I to will have to answer for my actions (Final Judgement?), but I know to stay focused in what were trying to achieve, we should keep the worlds of religion and science seperate.

The very best of luck with your designs.

The context has always been religious speech on this forum. You haven't answered the question; you've evaded it. It's your baseless point unless of course if you could provided some basis in fact for your irrational fear.

Gene

ps: hapy, I don't want to keep adding posts to this thread so I'm editing this to answer your post (like before you even made it). If you can manage a working wheel in a week I'll get you a case of cheetahs. I'm working on an interesting build as we speak. I think that God has given an interesting clue to perpetual motion somewhere after the torah and before the new testament. If you've never cracked the book that isn't too much of a clue. Bessler studied the bible. I'm sure he would say that it's nothing to sneeze at.

[fAtnhapy]

Ok, I'm giving you guys one more week then I'm going to solve the Bessler wheel puzzle. You better get on the stick. If you want to spend what precious time you have left calling each other biggots that's your business but don't come back later and whine that you weren't warned!
:0)
fAt