On 2008-12-04 14:45:20 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

> "Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
> news:gh9ltt$fm$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 2008-12-04 12:12:47 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> <newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:
>>
>>> By the way, I'm a bit surprised that you lumped yourself into the exact
>>> same
>>> category as Sharpton, Jackson, and anyone else who might be annoyed by
>>> the
>>> use of the word "primate" to describe a black minister.
>>
>> Really bad comparison, Joe. Completely different reasons.
>
> Well, you were focused on the word "primate", and suggested some sort of
> weird motive for its use in the article. I still don't see an explanation
> for that non-existent motive.
>
> Be careful about the words you object to. "Primate" includes humans. Anyone
> who uses the word in an attempt to insult another person is a moron and can
> be ignored.

And monkey refers to a lower primate. Anyone thinking its use implies
racism when context says otherwise is also a moron.



>> BTW, here's another:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us....html?_r=1&hp=
>>
>> What's amazing about this story is not what it says, but what it omits.
>> Mr. Emmanuel was on the board of Freddie Mac squarely when it was doling
>> out questionable loans.
>
> That doesn't seem to be the point of the story which, by the way, provides
> plenty of reason to dislike the man. You presented the story because you
> think it's biased. In fact, you are saying that you'd like it to be MORE
> biased in ways you like.

Just asking for the complete story, not santized of details that would
be particularly enlightening to the ignorant masses.

>
> You never studied journalism, did you?

Wrong again. You're batting a thousand.

"Conscience" <nobama@gov.com> wrote in message
news:gh9ptd$4t7$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-12-04 14:45:20 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>> BTW, here's another:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us....html?_r=1&hp=
>>>
>>> What's amazing about this story is not what it says, but what it omits.
>>> Mr. Emmanuel was on the board of Freddie Mac squarely when it was doling
>>> out questionable loans.
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be the point of the story which, by the way,
>> provides
>> plenty of reason to dislike the man. You presented the story because you
>> think it's biased. In fact, you are saying that you'd like it to be MORE
>> biased in ways you like.
>
> Just asking for the complete story, not santized of details that would be
> particularly enlightening to the ignorant masses.
>

Like I said, you wanted the story to include details which justify your
dislike of the guy. That measn you wanted the story to be biased YOUR way.


>> You never studied journalism, did you?
>
> Wrong again. You're batting a thousand.

Did you ever put it to use? If yes, did you work for one of the Gannett
papers?

By the way, I ***STILL*** don't see even an attempt at explaining WHY the
author of the church article would intend to use the word "primate" to add
some kind of bias to the article. You tried to deflect the question by
telling me how Sharpton or Jackson might flip out if the word was used to
describe them, but that dog won't hunt, since those two guys are not related
to the article.

Don't EVER tell me again about how I evade questions, OK?

On 2008-12-04 15:55:09 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<newstrash@frontiernet.net> said:

> By the way, I ***STILL*** don't see even an attempt at explaining WHY the
> author of the church article would intend to use the word "primate" to add
> some kind of bias to the article. You tried to deflect the question by
> telling me how Sharpton or Jackson might flip out if the word was used to
> describe them, but that dog won't hunt, since those two guys are not related
> to the article.
>
> Don't EVER tell me again about how I evade questions, OK?

Oooh. Ever, ever ever?

Conscience wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us...al.html?ref=us
>
> Notice, Joe, the inflammatory headline. The fault of the schism in the
> Anglican church is due to conservatives.
>
> We don't need to address how over the decades it was the liberal
> theologians that started the rift. Ordaining women, homosexuals, and
> even no longer requiring to believe in basic Christian tenets such as
> the bodily Resurrection, the Trinity, or salvation by faith. These
> have all been doctrine for nearly twenty centuries.
>
> No. It's the conservatives not wanting to accept the changes forced
> upon them by The Enlightened. They're at fault.
>
> You will now disagree.

What are the legally-required changes?