https://youtu.be/nGo5G0gp1T4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR41TU6HIu4

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 7:09:52 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR41TU6HIu4

Evidence, if evidence were needed, that you are a
cultural and social anti-semite. Why would anyone
count the number of Jewish "atheists" or "agnostics",
and why post a link to such a grossly biased talk ?!?

Not to mention there is absolutely no connection
between this talk and the link I posted for historical
interest.

Consider yurself slapped in the face, which I would
absolutely do if I were next to you.

dk

I included the link for completeness. You posted one point of view, I posted another.

Since you post endless YT links with absolutely no explanation, you invite further YT links, and that's what you're going to get.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend atheism. It's not a difficult concept unless you're too biased to allow it to enter your head.

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
>
> I included the link for completeness.

"Completeness"? What "completeness" ?!?

The link I posted was about Codex Sinaiticus.
It has nothing to do with agnostic or secular
Jews.

> You posted one point of view, I posted another.

I did not post a "point of view". I posted a link
to a video about a historical topic, that I found
informative and interesting. Not endorsing or
recommending anyone or anyhing. You have
become as paranoid as Herman and Marc S,
looking for hidden motives or implications,
and accusing others of imaginary crimes
or transgressions. Clean and polish that
mirror.

> Since you post endless YT links with absolutely
> no explanation, you invite further YT links, and t
> hat's what you're going to get.
>
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend atheism.

?!? How did you figure that out, considering that I
am a certified card carrying atheist ?!? Or is it that
my brand of atheism does not resonate with your
brand of atheism ?!?

> It's not a difficult concept unless you're too
> biased to allow it to enter your head.

You should take your haloperidocl immediately !!!

dk

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
>
> Since you post endless YT links
> with absolutely no explanation,

This is a bald, pluted lie. The subject line
said EXACTLY what the video was about:

"The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus"

What other "explanation" was needed ?!?

I regret to say you have moved to the
dark, evil, toxic side of this newsgroup.

Et tu, ......

dk

No intelligent conversation, just name calling.

Shame on you.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:58:53 -0700, Andy Evans wrote:

> I included the link for completeness. You posted one point of view, I posted another.
>
> Since you post endless YT links with absolutely no explanation, you invite further YT links, and that's what you're going to get.
>
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend atheism. It's not a difficult concept unless you're too biased to allow it to enter your head.

Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition of the
word "without religion", but in practice is specifically
and obsessively anti-Christian. An actual man without
religion would be anti-atheist and reject atheism as
a religious political movement.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 16:48:39 -0700, Dan Koren wrote:

> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:58:56???PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> >
> > Since you post endless YT links
> > with absolutely no explanation,
>
> This is a bald, pluted lie. The subject line
> said EXACTLY what the video was about:
>
> "The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus"

Force of habit? You usually aim to make blind
links, although you as a usenet lawyer do claim
are not blind.

>
> What other "explanation" was needed ?!?

Your own thoughts on the subject to accompany
the link instead of justa link?

This is usenet, not youtube, we havehigher standards of literacy here.

In article <0001HW.2A3FD70D00265BCD30DFB138F@news.giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition of the word
>"without religion", but in practice is specifically and obsessively
>anti-Christian. An actual man without religion would be anti-atheist
>and reject atheism as a religious political movement.

Close. The definition is "without god." Religion does not imply
god. (This is an error that I noted in another recent post.)

Also, if you want to play Usenet lawyer too, call them "bare links"
instead of blind....

On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 01:21:47 UTC+1, Pluted Pup wrote:

> Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition of the
> word "without religion", but in practice is specifically
> and obsessively anti-Christian. An actual man without
> religion would be anti-atheist and reject atheism as
> a religious political movement.

I can see where you are coming from here. But "in practice" since most of the world's population are believers of one kind or another, atheism has become defined as a rejection of accepted beliefs. And the more entrenched the religious beliefs are, the more dangerous it becomes to have dissenting views. This isn't just anti-Christian, it defines the atheist's position vis a vis any religion.

It seems ironic that one should have to define what "without religion" is, as you say.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 18:07:35 -0700, Andy Evans wrote:

> On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 01:21:47 UTC+1, Pluted Pup wrote:
>
> > Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition of the
> > word "without religion", but in practice is specifically
> > and obsessively anti-Christian. An actual man without
> > religion would be anti-atheist and reject atheism as
> > a religious political movement.
>
> I can see where you are coming from here. But "in practice" since most of the world's population are believers of one kind or another, atheism has become defined as a rejection of accepted beliefs. And the more entrenched the religious beliefs are, the more dangerous it becomes to have dissenting views. This isn't just anti-Christian, it defines the atheist's position vis a vis any religion.
>
> It seems ironic that one should have to define what "without religion" is, as you say.

I've noticed so-called atheists are very choosy of
what they condemn, generally Christianity. Where are
the atheist attacks on Jews?

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 18:02:32 -0700, Todd M. McComb wrote:

> In article<0001HW.2A3FD70D00265BCD30DFB138F@news.giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
> > Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition of the word
> > "without religion", but in practice is specifically and obsessively
> > anti-Christian. An actual man without religion would be anti-atheist
> > and reject atheism as a religious political movement.
>
> Close. The definition is "without god." Religion does not imply
> god. (This is an error that I noted in another recent post.)
>
> Also, if you want to play Usenet lawyer too, call them "bare links"
> instead of blind....

Better websites have a descriptive URL that might say just what
the link is pointing to, but youtube links are always blind,
all by itself with no description. Dan, the usenet lawyer, would
like to turn this newsgroup into a link farm.

On 2023-06-19 2:46 p.m., Pluted Pup wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 18:07:35 -0700, Andy Evans wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 19 June 2023 at 01:21:47 UTC+1, Pluted Pup wrote:
>>
>>> Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition of the
>>> word "without religion", but in practice is specifically
>>> and obsessively anti-Christian. An actual man without
>>> religion would be anti-atheist and reject atheism as
>>> a religious political movement.
>>
>> I can see where you are coming from here. But "in practice" since most of the world's population are believers of one kind or another, atheism has become defined as a rejection of accepted beliefs. And the more entrenched the religious beliefs are, the more dangerous it becomes to have dissenting views. This isn't just anti-Christian, it defines the atheist's position vis a vis any religion.
>>
>> It seems ironic that one should have to define what "without religion" is, as you say.
>
> I've noticed so-called atheists are very choosy of
> what they condemn, generally Christianity. Where are
> the atheist attacks on Jews?
>
>
Because in Nth America it's the so-called christians, based on their
Bronze-Age beliefs, who are forever trying to restrict other people's
rights.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 1:56:47 PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:
>
> Better websites have a descriptive URL

"Better" as defined by ..... you ?!?

> that might say just what the link is pointing to,

The subject line said EXACTLY what the
link points to: the discovery of Codex
Sinaiticus. Are acting dumb? Or are
you dumb? Or are you completely
pluted?

> but youtube links are always blind, all by
> itself with no description.

You are distorting and perverting language.
"Blind links" are links that hide the identity
of the sites the linkes point to. Clearly this
is not the case with YouTube links that are
not deliberarely masked by tiny URs.

You are a fucking pluted liar.

> Dan, the usenet lawyer, would like to turn
> this newsgroup into a link farm.

What an idiotic notion. Without posting links
to listanebl recordings or audio clips, this ng
is nothing more than a pluted pigsty.

dk

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:01:44 PM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
>
> No intelligent conversation,

Did you post any "intelligent"
conversation ?!?

> just name calling.

Exactly what you deserve.

> Shame on you.

Ditto.

dk

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:
>
> Atheism doesn't follow the dictionary definition
> of the word "without religion", but in practice is
> specifically and obsessively anti-Christian.

Can you provide any tangible verifiable data to
support this absurd intepretation?

> An actual man without religion would be anti-
> atheist and reject atheism as a religious political
> movement.

The notion that atheism is a "political mvement"
rather than a personal belief is beyond fascist.
It is medieval.

dk

In article <0001HW.2A40F888002FCF8D306A9A38F@news.giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>Dan, the usenet lawyer, would like to turn this newsgroup into a
>link farm.

Eh, his priority is to be the center of attention at all times.
Posting bare links is just a way to keep the constant churn going
without much effort.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 8:23:14 PM UTC-7, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <0001HW.2A40F8880...@news.giganews.com>,
> Pluted Pup <plut...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > Dan, the usenet lawyer, would like to
> > turn this newsgroup into a link farm.

How fo you propose to discuss music
performance without links to listenable
recordings or audio clips? Send everyone
tapes or CDs by mail?

> Eh, his priority is to be the center of
> attention at all times.

My only "priority" is to put tuna on the
table for my kittens.

> Posting bare links is just a way to keep
> the constant churn going without much
> effort.

"Posting bare links" is a bald pluted lie.

dk

> > Posting bare links is just a way to keep the constant churn going without much
> > effort.

That's about it, really. Just post a title saying "xxx composition" and add a link. No explanation of why the performance is interesting, how it compares to others etc. etc. so the post could start a genuine dialogue. But increasingly there is no attempt at dialogue. Just barking orders like some kind of superannuated military officer.

In fact avoiding dialogue seems to be increasingly what's happening - it doesn't take a genius to work out that if you consistently insult and alienate your fellow ng members they're not going to offer you much in the way of dialogue. Making more and more noise is no substitute for actually connecting with people. That's assuming that there's still enough humanity left in you that you would continue to enjoy connecting with people.

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 6:47:33 AM UTC-4, Andy Evans wrote:
> > > Posting bare links is just a way to keep the constant churn going without much
> > > effort.
> That's about it, really. Just post a title saying "xxx composition" and add a link. No explanation of why the performance is interesting, how it compares to others etc. etc. so the post could start a genuine dialogue. But increasingly there is no attempt at dialogue. Just barking orders like some kind of superannuated military officer.
>
> In fact avoiding dialogue seems to be increasingly what's happening - it doesn't take a genius to work out that if you consistently insult and alienate your fellow ng members they're not going to offer you much in the way of dialogue. Making more and more noise is no substitute for actually connecting with people. That's assuming that there's still enough humanity left in you that you would continue to enjoy connecting with people.

The single question for me regarding this thread is - what motivated the original poster to unload it on RMCR? What’s the point?

Also, what are the chances that we would get an honest and clear answer to this question?

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 12:47:33 PM UTC+2, Andy Evans wrote:

> > > if you consistently insult and alienate your fellow ng members they're not going to offer you much in the way of dialogue. Making more and more noise is no substitute for actually connecting with people. That's assuming that there's still enough humanity left in you that you would continue to enjoy connecting with people.

quoted for truth

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 3:47:33 AM UTC-7, Andy Evans wrote:
> > > Posting bare links is just a way to keep
> > > the constant churn going without much
> > > effort.
>
> That's about it, really. Just post a title saying
> "xxx composition" and add a link. No explanation
> of why the performance is interesting,

This post was not about a "performance".

> how it compares to others etc. etc. so
> the post could start a genuine dialogue.

Anyone can start a conversation if they
want to. It doesn have to be the original
poster. Why try to formalize everything?

> But increasingly there is no attempt at
> dialogue. Just barking orders like some
> kind of superannuated military officer.

This is precisely what you are trying to do.

> In fact avoiding dialogue seems to be
> increasingly what's happening - it doesn't
> take a genius to work out that if you
> consistently insult and alienate your
> fellow ng members they're not going
> to offer you much in the way of dialogue.
>
> Making more and more noise is no
> substitute for actually connecting with
> people. That's assuming that there's still
> enough humanity left in you that you would
> continue to enjoy connecting with people.

You are making huge assumptions about
people's intent, effectively deligitimizing
everyone who doesn't see things the same
way you do.

And how is one supposed to "connect"
with anonymous trolls? Clearly people
who hide behind the mask of anonimity
are not interested in connecting with
others.

This ng is (or supposed to be) about music
recordings. No more, no less, and nothing
else. Open, unmoderated internet groups
are not designed to "connect" with people.

dk

In article <711d3804-8fb8-4559-bc4a-c12a09ff8069n@googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performanceandmedia@gmail.com> wrote:
>In fact avoiding dialogue seems to be increasingly what's happening

It's right-wing strategy on a global scale, divide & conquer, very
effective.... Yes, Dan sometimes pivots to claim that he has actual
values, but he spends much of his time behaving as a narcissistic
bully ranting about political correctness. It's no coincidence
that far right posters support him -- and it's no coincidence that
Dan came through Silicon Valley either. A lot of people there are
fooling themselves.

On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 4:56:50 AM UTC-7, JohnGavin wrote:
>
> The single question for me regarding
> this thread is - what motivated the
> original poster to unload it on RMCR?
> What’s the point?

The origin and history of the Bible is a
historically and intellectually important
topic to many people, including people
who are not practicing Christians. The
discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus was
a watershed event in Bible research.
This is pretty obvious, isn't it?

> Also, what are the chances that
> we would get an honest and clear
> answer to this question?

You just got one.

dk