Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blueghost]

Does anyone still have a copy of the "original" rant that Rawles put up ?

It appears to me that some who have not actually read it do not "get" the hubris with which he delivered his ultimatum concerning the welcome of anyone not religiously "approved" in "his" redoubt.

I forgot to grab a copy.

Most damning to me personally was his changing the words and then telling folks to "go read it for yourselves". Patooie on that brand of arrogance.

Here is the original article Rawles posted. It seems the only thing that has been changed in the newer article is he added the "point of clarification": "I do not, nor have I ever advocated asking anyone already living here in the Redoubt States to leave, nor would I deny anyone's right to move here, regardless of their faith, (or lack thereof)."

 
 
 Â   That's ****not**** the original. In the original he *clearly* stated " if you don't share these precepts don't move here."
 
 Damage control versions such as the above aren't going to cut the mustard.

[Clip Johnson]

Does anyone still have a copy of the "original" rant that Rawles put up ?

It appears to me that some who have not actually read it do not "get" the hubris with which he delivered his ultimatum concerning the welcome of anyone not religiously "approved" in "his" redoubt.

I forgot to grab a copy.

Most damning to me personally was his changing the words and then telling folks to "go read it for yourselves". Patooie on that brand of arrogance.

Here is the original article Rawles posted. It seems the only thing that has been changed in the newer article is he added the "point of clarification": "I do not, nor have I ever advocated asking anyone already living here in the Redoubt States to leave, nor would I deny anyone's right to move here, regardless of their faith, (or lack thereof)."

 
 
 Â   That's ****not**** the original. In the original he *clearly* stated " if you don't share these precepts don't move here."
 
 Damage control versions such as the above aren't going to cut the mustard.

My apologies Blueghost, as I thought it must have been due to the fact that is has a date of March 28th.

Edited to say: I see in the article dated March 28th, Rawles did say, "Read my Precepts page. If you aren't in agreement with most of those precepts, then I don't recommend that you relocate to the Redoubt--you probably won't fit in." This is also in the "newer" article. Is this what you're referring to? Or was it something other?

[Clip Johnson]

Excuse me
Just because it is so lovely, especially to this elder mathematician and anthropologist, I ask you to take a break and check out this bit about the greatest artist I have ever known personally, even if not very well as of yet.   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW9LY9dC6Lg&feature=related

Enjoy!

ff

That is fascinating Feralfae. Thank you for sharing it.

There are indeed so very many things that indicate to me that things were designed by a Creator. From the theory of general relativity, the big-bang theory, the anthropic principle, the second law of thermodynamics, information theory and DNA, complexity as design (irreducible complexity), as well as the findings of the Cosmic Background Explorer found at this link, all point to Intelligent Design of a transcendent Creator.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but don't want to jack this thread any further than I have, not to mention, most don't want to hear about such stuff anyway.

[da gooch]

Does anyone still have a copy of the "original" rant that Rawles put up ?

It appears to me that some who have not actually read it do not "get" the hubris with which he delivered his ultimatum concerning the welcome of anyone not religiously "approved" in "his" redoubt.

I forgot to grab a copy.

Most damning to me personally was his changing the words and then telling folks to "go read it for yourselves". Patooie on that brand of arrogance.

Here is the original article Rawles posted. It seems the only thing that has been changed in the newer article is he added the "point of clarification": "I do not, nor have I ever advocated asking anyone already living here in the Redoubt States to leave, nor would I deny anyone's right to move here, regardless of their faith, (or lack thereof)."

Those are both the same image Clip. [even down to the BOLD emphasis in both.]

There is At Least one whole sentence that has been removed from the original.
[See question by mountain prepper here in this thread.]
And that Bold sentence that you point out .... was it there in the original ?
IF you did not see the original then you won't know what is missing or has been changed.
Which was the whole point of changing the wording and then making a public offer for folks to "go read it for yourself".

Patooie ...

[Rhetorical question]
Sleight of hand trickery doesn't speak well of the morals of the individual using it .... does it ? [/Rhetorical question]

Does anyone still have a copy of the "original" rant that Rawles put up ?

It appears to me that some who have not actually read it do not "get" the hubris with which he delivered his ultimatum concerning the welcome of anyone not religiously "approved" in "his" redoubt.

I forgot to grab a copy.

Most damning to me personally was his changing the words and then telling folks to "go read it for yourselves". Patooie on that brand of arrogance.

Here is the original article Rawles posted. It seems the only thing that has been changed in the newer article is he added the "point of clarification": "I do not, nor have I ever advocated asking anyone already living here in the Redoubt States to leave, nor would I deny anyone's right to move here, regardless of their faith, (or lack thereof)."

 
 
 Â   That's ****not**** the original. In the original he *clearly* stated " if you don't share these precepts don't move here."
 
 Damage control versions such as the above aren't going to cut the mustard.

[Clip Johnson]

Yes, I see your point Gooch.

[Mountain Prepper]

Excuse me
Just because it is so lovely, especially to this elder mathematician and anthropologist, I ask you to take a break and check out this bit about the greatest artist I have ever known personally, even if not very well as of yet.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9MwNm0gXd8&feature=player_embedded

Enjoy!

ff

The proportions of the golden rectangle have been observed in works predating Pacioli's publication.

Patterns are perceived for a reason... Pareidolia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia



Please watch this "Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Why Intelligent Design is WRONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g

Sacred geometry is also central to cults like Kabbalah.

I have to deal with engineers and mathematicians on a regular basis and I come across the quasi-religious issue that everything can be explained with mathematics... BS

One thing - variables

Irreducible complexity is a fraud. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

[Clip Johnson]

Excuse me
Just because it is so lovely, especially to this elder mathematician and anthropologist, I ask you to take a break and check out this bit about the greatest artist I have ever known personally, even if not very well as of yet.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9MwNm0gXd8&feature=player_embedded

Enjoy!

ff

The proportions of the golden rectangle have been observed in works predating Pacioli's publication.

Patterns are perceived for a reason... Pareidolia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Box-pareidolia-2011-01-30.jpg/150px-Box-pareidolia-2011-01-30.jpg

Please watch this "Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Why Intelligent Design is WRONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g

Sacred geometry is also central to cults like Kabbalah.

I have to deal with engineers and mathematicians on a regular basis and I come across the quasi-religious issue that everything can be explained with mathematics... BS

One thing - variables

Irreducible complexity is a fraud. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

This is an awesome topic of discussion, and one that I would love to have within the confines of this forum; unfortunately, this isn't the appropriate thread for it, nor do I actually believe this forum is either. As I am venturing to guess that most here are not interested in seeing or participating in such a debate of these arguments/evidences. And I completely understand and respect that. Nonetheless, I would love to hear your thoughts Mountain Prepper on such arguments, and share mine as well. Just wished this was the proper time and place for such a healthy and enlightening debate.

[Mountain Prepper]

This is an awesome topic of discussion, and one that I would love to have within the confines of this forum; unfortunately, this isn't the appropriate thread for it, nor do I actually believe this forum is either. As I am venturing to guess that most here are not interested in seeing or participating in such a debate of these arguments/evidences. And I completely understand and respect that. Nonetheless, I would love to hear your thoughts Mountain Prepper on such arguments, and share mine as well. Just wished this was the proper time and place for such a healthy and enlightening debate.

The subject has been introduced and neither you or I introduced it.

I could suggest that a sub section could be created or even a new thread, I don’t think anyone is afraid of a new subject, everyone is free to ignore things they care little about...

[Moonbeam]

Dudeism

http://dudeism.com/

Come join the slowest-growing religion in the world – Dudeism. An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness, practices as little as possible, and above all, uh…lost my train of thought there. Anyway, if you’d like to find peace on earth and goodwill, man, we’ll help you get started. Right after a little nap.

"The Dude abides!"  

[Clip Johnson]

The subject has been introduced and neither you or I introduced it.

I could suggest that a sub section could be created or even a new thread, I don’t think anyone is afraid of a new subject, everyone is free to ignore things they care little about...

Perhaps, then, I should start a new thread (not sure where to put it) if no one would have any objections. But for goodness sakes, I don't want to be perceived as merely proselytizing, which is one thing I have really tried to get a grip on since the event where as I seemed to have a hand in running our beloved Claire off due to such.

But to be perfectly honest, its getting late and I'm a bit punch drunk and needing some sleep. If no one comes around between now and then, and beats me about the upper-head and thorax regarding it, I will start a thread tomorrow. And look forward to seeing you there.