XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion   
   From: ladyhawk_twonospam@hotmail.com   
      
   Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   > --sexkitten--  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   >   
   >>Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>--sexkitten--  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>Robert B. Winn wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>"junegill"  wrote in message news:   
   c4n4mn$p5s$2@titan.btinternet.com>...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Robert B. Winn"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>news:7943568.0404010601.476618d9@posting.google.com...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>"junegill"  wrote in message news:>>>>>   
   >>>>>>[snip]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>I have not cast any stones, whatsoever.   Jesus Christ was without   
   >>>>>>>>>>>sin.  What he said to the woman taken in adultery was, Go, and sin   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>no   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>more.  I said the same thing to Mark Seebree.  Mark Seebree said   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>that   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>I was being hateful and oppressive to women.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>You most certainly have cast stones: you've accused Mark of   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>adultery,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>homicide and terrorism.  I asked whether _you_ are without sin, not   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Jesus   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>Christ.  Note that He didn't cast the first, or any, stone at the   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>woman.   
   >>>>>>If   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>you think that you have the same authority as Jesus to say what He   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>said,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>then you have delusions of grandeur.  Mark is quite right that you   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>are   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>hateful and oppressive to women: you seem to think you have the   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>right to   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>dictate to women what they should do with their own bodies and would   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>take   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>their bodily autonomy away from them - doesn't get much more hateful   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>and   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>oppressive than that.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>Mark Seebree was the one who wrote a long dissertation about his   
   >>>>>>>>>adulteries.  All that took place up until that time was that I pointed   
   >>>>>>>>>out that prophecy says that anyone who denies the existence of God and   
   >>>>>>>>>demands to see a sign is an adulterer, which Mark immediately   
   >>>>>>>>>confirmed to be true in his case.  So I tell him, Go and commit   
   >>>>>>>>>adultery no more, and you claim I have been hateful and oppressive.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>That's where your delusions of grandeur come in - telling Mark what to   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>do as   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>though you're Jesus Christ.  You are full of pride (the worst sin), if   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>you   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>think you have the same authority as your Deity.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>It appears to me that any criticism of adultery is what you consider   
   >>>>>>>>>to be hateful.   
   >>>>>>>>>Robert B. Winn   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>No, I do not consider criticism of adultery to be hateful - it's not   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>anyone   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>else's business, but not hateful.  Of course, that's real adultery I'm   
   >>>>>>>>talking about, as in cheating on one's spouse.  What is hateful, as I   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>said   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>up above, is that you'd take away women's bodily autonomy if you could.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>I do not get involved in adultery.   
   >>>>>>>Robert B. winn   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Where did I say that you do?  You've completely ignored everything that I   
   >>>>>>posted and come up with something totally irrelevant.  It's about time   
   >>>>>>someone reported you to your ISP for adding irrelevant one-liners to   
   lengthy   
   >>>>>>posts.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Well, here is what you might want to report.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>      child   n.  1.  an unborn or recently born person   
   >>>>>                Meririam-Webster dictionary   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>As I understand it, there is nothing considered to be a greater   
   >>>>>offense in a pro-abortion society than using this definition of child.   
   >>>>>Robert B. Winn   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I'd get just as offended by you using a wrong definition of anything   
   >>>>else. So is a three month old infant an adult? You haven't answered yet   
   >>>>and its a pretty simple question...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Why don't you decide whether or not you want a three month old infant   
   >>>to be an adult.   
   >>   
   >>Why are you putting it on me? YOU defined it as an adult.   
   >   
   >   
   > I don't worry about them much after they are born.  They have a fairly   
   > good chance of survival in this country after that.   
   > Robert B. winn   
      
   So is a three month old infant an adult? You haven't answered yet and   
   its a pretty simple question...   
      
      
   --   
   --sexkitten--A critic is a man who knows the way, but can't drive the car.   
   This signature was made by SigChanger.   
   You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)