Chit Chat

By Ted Belman

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 7,781 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 7781 Comments

  1. dweller Said:

    More like a fox; that’s what infuriates him.

    Sharp. Not venomous.

    Those kinds of teeth belong to some OTHER elements around here.

    More like a lying AH !!!!! A Sicko full of himself.

    No marks on me Fegele I just tore your smirk off your toady face. At your age and physical condition are you sure you have any teeth left. Dentists i hear cost money.

  2. @ bernard ross:
    Another of his lies. The acid in his brain is working to his
    disadvantage. Only a couple of months ago did he address honeybee by the name TWINKIE. What does he think? He is “divagando” do not know the English word but he is definitely on his way down. When he is caught he lies and lies some more but in his mind he thinks is true. Need to take his medicine or the one he is taking is not effective any longer. Ask the doctor for a new more effective medication. Sigue, sigue y sigue….

  3. dweller Said:

    He didn’t lie. He said it was written. And it HAD been so written.

    Playing word games dweller? He, your shiftily liar and dwarf was saying it was his authority meaning Jewish scriptures but he cheated like you do He lied like you do he swindled his stupid ignorant audience like you try to do.

    Real Jews who knew their own scripture rode him out like they did your yeshu mythical character out on a rail/ If anyone was convinced by these charlatans it wasn’t knowledgeable Jews but the riffraff Amcha !!!!

    So now, Jefferson is your ‘authority’ on Paul’s veracity??? (let alone, your ‘authority’ on Paul’s faithfulness to Jesus’ teaching)???

    He is as good or better than Mark Twain who you used for yours.

    Scott Nelson’s work

    Never heard of him but I’m sure you can provide proof from the page I used which had no attribution. Most of it was direct quotes from your scriptures you know the yesu ones that the liar Paul fudged the same liar you defend making you equally a fraud and liar. You have not refuted any of the points I used regardless of author. Because you can’t it
    it’s in black and white for all to see read and compare them unless they are a delusional sick liar like you, they must agree with the points I raised.

    You’ve never successfully made the case for Paul as ‘liar.’

    I have Many times frontward and backward up and down. Deny, excuse make up excuses never meant or there but the text speaks for itself and you both are liars and frauds delusions sickos.

    Probably not but Mashiach isn’t either and you choose the Greek!!!!! Selective according to your agenda????

    I routinely overlook spelling errors as long as the intended word is apparent. That wasn’t a spelling error. That was a malapropism.

    Bullshit dweller I know the difference and misspelled without thinking. Just like you check my sources (my bones to make you work) I know the difference and since when do watch little boys on TV… ? Are you a pedophile too besides being a Fegele?

    Neither a fetish NOR compulsive. It was a calmly considered, fully rational decision.

    It’s both and your posting record will verify it so.

    I’ve told you before that this isn’t a private pen-pal exchange but a public blogsite. The mere fact that your comment is addressed to one person does not mean nobody else reads it or has an interest in reading it. And others might NOT have understood your word choice.

    Not your call! Nobody appointed you the guardian editor and copywriter in chief on this blog. You do it to show off but nobody but you seems to give a shit why is that sicko? Obsessive compulsive, can’t help yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mental illness is tough especially when you are in denial. Tell us do they keep you in a locked ward or open one?????

    Nobody’s ‘compelled’ to correct anything about you. But there’s no reason to wonder why nobody else ever corrects your malapropisms. Nobody else who remains around here (after you’ve tried pressuring them to leave) has ever had the balls. You just don’t intimidate me.

    Ah here we cut to the chase. Your comment here speaks for itself a paranoid psycho. I am the real reason you haven’t left!!! 🙂 🙂

  4. @ bernard ross:

    “I’ve been addressing [HB] as Twinkie for a couple of YEARS (or more), and she’s known the reason for all that time. Moreover, YOU’ve been aware of my giving her the name for just as long as well. It’s a little late for the sturm-und-drang

    — so you’ll pardon me while I stifle a yawn. . . .”

    “thus proving you are a woman hater, a misogynist, as you have insulted a number of women here often in the past.”

    I’ve insulted several MEN around here for quite a bit MORE than two years.

    Does that ‘prove’ me a “man hater”?

    If not, why not?

    If so — then why isn’t it a big deal? What’s good for the goose. . . .

    (Good God, I hope they were insulted. I sure-as-blazes intended for them to be insulted; they clearly had it coming.)

    “Hence, your following the ‘celibacy’ doctrines of your church”…”

    I know of no ‘church’ that pursues a doctrine of celibacy for its adherents (does yours?).

    Seems like that would make sustaining itself over time somewhat problematic, don’t you suppose?

    — or DON’T you suppose? (confidentially, what DO you use for brains — sawdust?)

  5. @ bernard ross:

    “I have in the past provided you with a list of all those mentioned in both The Jewish scriptures and you NT that describes many as good and righteous.”

    “You’ve never successfully made the case for Paul as ‘liar…”

    “he hopes everyone else will forget that you have debunked his Pauline mythology thousands of times here already… “

    Not at all. His lame attempts are invariably amusing, because they show the mind of somebody seeking not truth — but seeking, instead, ammunition. Actually I’d be delighted if “everyone” would remember in intricate detail those pitiful stabbings at shadows. But they won’t. Most of the “everyone” of whom you speak (the regular posters) can’t afford to see him in too garish a light, even one which he casts on himself BY hmself. The fact is, he is one helluva lot more of a liar than Paul could ever be shown to have been.

    Capt Huff’n’puff doesn’t begin with an open, questing mind prepared to follow wherever the truth may lead. He cannot, because that would require COURAGE — and, at core, he is essentially a coward.

    So instead, he begins with his destination already determined and simply reaches for pathways to get there. That’s not only intellectually dishonest, but also morally chickenshit.

    And as for YOU, Sir Slime Trails, how would you even know whether Huffy had successfuly ‘debunked’ my ‘mythology’ or not?

    Since you’ve never READ the NT for yourself, you wouldn’t know whether he had even been accurately quoting Paul or the Montgomery-Ward Catalog — let alone, be in a position to independently weigh the ding-al-ling’s claims against Paul.

    “a true deceiver…”

    There IS a deceiver here, but YOU have no interior standard of objectivity

    — so you’re incapable of identifying him.

  6. @ honeybee:

    “Who bit you this morning,Darlin ?”

    “I did! — obviously.

    (Dontcha recognize the teeth marks?)”

    “OMG you are a poisonous serpent”

    More like a fox; that’s what infuriates him.

    Sharp. Not venomous.

    Those kinds of teeth belong to some OTHER elements around here.

  7. @ bernard ross:

    “I’ve shown you the very meaning of the word”

    “No you did not… you said you used the term since the 70’s to describe that “certain type of woman”.

    “I did NOT say I’d shown you the meaning of the word, “Twinkie,” you sneaky, scheming mamzer. You deliberately lifted that statement out of its context to MISREPRESENT what I did say — which was that I’d shown you the meaning of the word, “smear.” Here is the post — and context — my remark came from [#47, prev pg]:

    [Ross]: “HB’s view of herself as a deflection of your smear… is irrelevant to this discussion which is about your misogynist smears and derogatory use of the word Twinkie to describe and address her.”

    [dweller]: “What ‘smears’ would THOSE be, Mr King-of-Smears? I’ve shown you the very meaning of the word and you have YET to demonstrate anything I’ve done that remotely fits the description. Derogatory, yes. Smears, NO.

    And what’s wrong with derogatory? Bloggers on this site use terms of derogation all the time. Since when does HB come in for special, kid-gloves treatment?”

    “I assumed you were on subject and talking about the word twinkie”

    Yeah, sure you did. That’s why you deftly removed it from its context on the previous page. No sale, you lying sack of shit.

    “… smear is self evident.”

    It is nothing of the sort. Repeat: I painstakingly showed you the meaning of the word, “smear,” and there is no way you can fit what I did or said to those parameters. That dog won’t hunt.

    “you still evade that you misogynistically smeared HB with the epithet Twinkie. all your garbage cannot obfuscate the simple truth…”

    That ITSELF is a truckload of garbage. There is no ‘simple truth’ in a claim that has no basis in fact. You’ve been shown what a smear consists of — and how your claims do not fit the definition.

    But you prefer how the claim makes you FEEL to the truth of its objective meaning. So you CALL it a ‘smear,’ though it is nothing of the sort.

    WHAT MATTERS TO YOU IS NOT THE TRUTH BUT THE FEELINGS WHICH YOUR EGO NEEDS FOR THE SUPPORT OF ITS OWN SELF-IMAGE.

    You’re not into truth — you’re into power.

    “…’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all’….”

    Yup; that’s all.

    “…, you evade defining twinkie”

    You haven’t established that my refusal to accommodate you represents ‘evasion.’ Saying so doesn’t make it so. We know that you WANT to believe that that’s the reason, but you’ve yet to establish that as the reason. And it will take more than the flat assertion of the interested party to accomplish that.

    ” because it proves you are a liar and misogynist.”

    Actually, what it PROVES is that you can’t get from me what I’m not about to give you. Beyond that, your remarks are sheer maliciously wishful thinking. No rocket science here.

  8. @ yamit82:
    he has probably been assigned as a mole to this site, and others, for years to proselytize Jews here with stealth. You know those folks are “persistent” 🙂

  9. yamit82 Said:

    I would give a lot to write his epitaph, may it be sooner than later.

    the Jews for Jesus mole unmasked 😛 😛 😛 😛
    all those years of deception and now the truth is out

  10. dweller Said:

    Bernard Ross Said:
    “what is your source for this statement?”
    Dweller Said:
    It’s commonly accepted by scholars of virtually EVERY stripe and background. But if you must have a specific reference, this one will do for now:

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    LOLOLOLOLO
    will the real dweller stand up??????
    found on a Jews for Jesus site the following end of page reference notes, the same page which replicated dwellers response

    Most scholars agree that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke). “Most of the writers of the various parts were Jews, and the writings were designed for Jewish readers who had embraced the Christian faith….
    ……….
    In its authorship, content and focus there is hardly a book more Jewish than the New Testament. Would it not be worthy of reading?

    Endnotes

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v10-n05/newtestament

    😛 😛 😛 😛
    the self proclaimed jew cites Jews for Jesus as the source of his statement that the NT writers were committed Jews
    This is a perfect example of deception and Pauline ‘marketing’, Dweller mimics Pauls “marketing”
    he hasn’t lied to us, it’s just “marketing”
    😛 😛 😛 😛
    @ yamit82:
    yamit is going to love this one

  11. dweller Said:

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    I was able to locate but unable to get the page
    in the about section…its a reform encyclopedia

    “…makes every effort to find allies among others, especially christians…
    the author was a vigorous proponent of interfaith Jewish Christian dialogue

    author died in 1946

  12. dweller Said:

    It’s commonly accepted by scholars of virtually EVERY stripe and background. But if you must have a specific reference, this one will do for now:

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

    when googling your source I get only christian related links. couldn’t find your source on the internet, what’s your citation from that page?
    this excerpt from a jews for jesus site which came up second when googling your link sounds like your comment almost verbatim…what a coincidence. HMMMM?

    Most scholars agree that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke).
    http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v10-n05/newtestament

    followed by:

    “Most of the writers of the various parts were Jews, and the writings were designed for Jewish readers who had embraced the Christian faith.

  13. dweller Said:

    He didn’t lie. He said it was written. And it HAD been so written.

    what a fraud…He is not commenting on whether it was written but that the fact is the same as was written. Whether written or not he is stating it as a fact. Nice bit of Pauline “marketing” there though. gosh, you will grasp at any straw which is why we always know that you will say anything to market your fiction.dweller Said:

    So now, Jefferson is your ‘authority’ on Paul’s veracity???

    One needs no authority on his veracity because Yamit has shown how he contradicts the bible which for Jews has more authority than Paul.dweller Said:

    In any case, you’re still up to your old tricks,

    typical revisionism and projection
    dweller Said:

    If you want me to address something YOU have to say, then you say it in your own words.

    and yet you refuse to reveal what “certain type of woman” you mean when calling HB twinkie. Just another means of running away from the simple proofs offered by Yamit countless times here… you ignore them and then return with the same BS later, hoping for a new set of posters to whom you “market” your BS.
    dweller Said:

    You’ve never successfully made the case for Paul as ‘liar.’

    In the past you said Paul was good and “marketing” rather than being a liar. This is of course the type of perspective which arises from a deceitful ideology that has been responsible for the swindling, libeling, torturing and slaughtering of Jews for 2000 years and still doing it today. You merely reflect the character of your associates in ideology. Why would a Jew seek his sources from such a collective? Their history should be enough to keep any Jew away. What you call “marketing” is deception but then how can one expect anyone subscribing to that ideology to think any differently that the other club members? you never answered my question about the source of your statement that their writings were from committed Jews, did you rely on christian sources to tell you what was written by Jews? Today we have many Jews espousing and writing all sorts of despicable libels about Israel and jews. when I see a 2000 year collective behavior I “consider the source” and who else belonged to that club in the same way I would be cautious in accepting the credibility of a nazi party or KKK member. Not all members killed Jews.

  14. @ bernard ross:

    “… who bases [his] beliefs on the writings of those who have swindled, libeled, tortured and slaughtered Jews for 2000 years…”

    “Your ignorance betrays you. The writings in question are NOT the writings of those who did those things. The persons who did those things may have presumed to RELATE to those writings — but it was not THEY who did the writing. The writing was done almost entirely by committed JEWS.”

    “what is your source for this statement?”

    It’s commonly accepted by scholars of virtually EVERY stripe and background. But if you must have a specific reference, this one will do for now:

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969), p. 174.

  15. “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one’
    Romans 3:10 Paul lied!”

    He didn’t lie. He said it was written. And it HAD been so written.

    “…’Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.’ Thomas Jefferson From a letter”

    So now, Jefferson is your ‘authority’ on Paul’s veracity??? (let alone, your ‘authority’ on Paul’s faithfulness to Jesus’ teaching)???

    In any case, you’re still up to your old tricks, I see. That Jefferson quote and most of your post are all lifted verbatim from Scott Nelson’s essay.

    If you want me to address something YOU have to say, then you say it in your own words. And I’ll respond in MY own words.

    If you want me to address Scott Nelson’s work, then bring HIM online. But I’ll not address him as if he were you, or you as if you were he.

    “I have in the past provided you with a list of all those mentioned in both The Jewish scriptures and you NT that describes many as good and righteous.”

    You’ve never successfully made the case for Paul as ‘liar.’ Moreover, the word, righteous, is not used in the same sense in the Greek as b’Ivrit.

    “snitch”

    “Snitch” what? — Are you asking me to?

    @ yamit82:

    “I think the word you’re looking for here is epithet — not ‘epitaph’.”

    “I don’t mind my lousy spelling being corrected…”

    I routinely overlook spelling errors as long as the intended word is apparent. That wasn’t a spelling error. That was a malapropism.

    Art Linkletter used to interview young kids for his afternoon TV show, “Kids say the darnedest things.” One afternoon he put a microphone in front of a little boy’s face & asked him what animal he would most like to be. The kid says to him, “an octopus.” Linkletter asks why. He says, “so I could grab things with my testicles.”

    That wasn’t a ‘spelling’ error either.

    “… but with you it a compulsive fetish.”

    Neither a fetish NOR compulsive. It was a calmly considered, fully rational decision.

    “Since you apparently understood what I had intended without correction and since it was directed at you there was no need to correct…”

    I’ve told you before that this isn’t a private pen-pal exchange but a public blogsite. The mere fact that your comment is addressed to one person does not mean nobody else reads it or has an interest in reading it. And others might NOT have understood your word choice.

    “Did it ever occur to you that of all those commenting on this blog over the years only you seem compelled to correct spelling errors of another commenter. I wonder why?”

    Nobody’s ‘compelled’ to correct anything about you. But there’s no reason to wonder why nobody else ever corrects your malapropisms. Nobody else who remains around here (after you’ve tried pressuring them to leave) has ever had the balls. You just don’t intimidate me.

  16. I’m not the snitch here (at least, nobody’s ever identified anyone I’m supposed to have snitched off).

    Sure we have just as you have told us what you mean by calling HB Twinky. Obvious and based on common sense, right?

    The snitch here is (as I’ve clearly shown) none other than HB herself — who first made the (unsubstantiated) claim against YoursVeryTruly.

    You have not shown bubkis except in your own warped sick mind. You have not!!!!!! Period!!!!!!
    She was correct and we both understood why and You still don’t??? Your problem AH not ours we can if pressed by anyone other than you show and prove our case but never because you ask or demand we do….Get it Fegele??????

    If it’s true and it is then it’s as you call it a spade is a spade!!!!!!! Shoe fits, wear it. 😛 Since every name I call you is true then I can’t be censured for saying the truth.

    You are a stinking Mentally ill sanctimonious Prig. Whose bitch were you in prison or did they pass you around, Felele???? Who the hell are you to make moral judgements about anyone??? You have gone too far and I will nail you to a cross I had the pleasure to make myself, just for you.

  17. @ bernard ross:

    Who appointed him the moral authority which allows him with feigned aura of equanimity to judge anyone on this blog and cast aspersions of turpitude against their persons on this very public forum?????????

    He assumes a posture and position and ultimate moral authority never given to him by any other and if he can’t hold his opinions to himself should be put in his very low place, Very Low place indeed.

  18. dweller Said:

    If had I personally & directly called somebody a ‘Twinkie,’ it would’ve been because she’d have had it coming

    why would you call a woman a gay effeminate man?

    “Twin·kie
    1. trademark a small finger-shaped sponge cake with a white synthetic cream filling.
    2. informal derogatory a gay or effeminate man, or a young man regarded as an object of homosexual desire.

    I have not seen the definition which refers to that “certain type of woman” anywhere and you have not defined your use of it in that manner; therefore it is likely that you are using the standard definition but are too frightened to reveal it. Your pauline church has many celibates with homosexual behaviors and caught fondling little boys.

  19. dweller Said:

    It’s clearly derogatory, but not vile — it’s a mild rebuke.

    the gay celibate, Pauline, misogynist gives his misogyny a rating.

  20. dweller Said:

    It’s an insult only if it isn’t true. It IS true.

    It is definitely NOT true…
    Perhaps your are projecting again when you call her that epithet….

    “Twin·kie

    2. informal derogatory a gay or effeminate man, or a young man regarded as an object of homosexual desire.

    you call her that “certain type of woman” but you avoid stating what that type actually is. Perhaps you are actually projecting that “certain type of man” according to the most relevant definition of twinkie. Perhaps that celibacy is affecting you as it affected so many others in your church.

  21. dweller Said:

    I’ve been addressing her as Twinkie for a couple of YEARS (or more)

    thus proving you are a woman hater, a misogynist, as you have insulted a number of women here often in the past. Hence, your following the “celibacy” doctrines of your church.

  22. yamit82 Said:

    I have in the past provided you with a list of all those mentioned in both The Jewish scriptures and you NT that describes many as good and righteous. making your paul the dwarf a Liar and a fraud just like you.

    he hopes everyone else will forget that you have debunked his Pauline mythology thousands of times here already… a true deceiver…

  23. dweller Said:

    I did NOT say I’d shown you the meaning of the word, “Twinkie,” you sneaky, scheming mamzer. You deliberately lifted that statement out of its context to MISREPRESENT what I did say — which was that I’d shown you the meaning of the word, “smear.”

    I assumed you were on subject and talking about the word twinkie, smear is self evident. No need for red herring tangents: you still evade that you misogynistically smeared HB with the epithet Twinkie. all your garbage cannot obfuscate the simple truth, you evade defining twinkie because it proves you are a liar and misogynist. no rocket science here.

  24. yamit82 Said:

    I think the word you’re looking for here is epithet — not “epitaph.”

    as you mentioned spades(shovels) along with epitaph, perhaps your spelling “error” was magically corrected. 🙂

  25. I think the word you’re looking for here is epithet — not “epitaph.”

    You’re continuing to deteriorate before our very eyes.

    I don’t mind my lousy spelling being corrected but with you it a compulsive fetish. Since you apparently understood what I had intended without correction and since it was directed at you there was no need to correct except to attempt to exhibit some minor demonstration of superiority over me.. Very infantile behavior on your part. Did it ever occur to you that of all those commenting on this blog over the years only you seem compelled to correct spelling errors of another commenter. I wonder why??? No, I know why, you sick Cretinous-Microbe!!

  26. To be characterized as ‘disingenuous,’ and a ‘liar’ by Huff’n’puff

    — is a lot like being called “ugly” by a toad.

    For The AH uglier than a Toad!!!

    As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
    Romans 3:10 Paul lied!!!!!!

    “Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”
    Thomas Jefferson From a letter to W. Short published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985, p.208). P)

    “…to the Jew I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without Law, as without Law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without Law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak, I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 1Corinthians 9:20-22

    Appaulling Apaulogetics!: “The just shall live by faith”. Romans 1:17
    Stolen from: “Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him, but the just shall live by his faith.” Habakkuk 2:4
    The righteous person will live if he is steadfast in his righteousness! Nowhere in this picture is the idea: If an unrighteous person wants to become righteous, he must operate in faith. Paul the Liar and twister of meaning context and even alerter of original texts. Paul is so far off it’s hopeless!

    This verse is part of Paul’s quote from Psalm 14 that he used as proof that man cannot keep the Law to become righteous. Here is the entire piece of Scripture that Paul uses in Romans 3.

    As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seek after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18

    This is Paul’s apparent direct quote from Scripture that is supposed to prove to us that no one is righteous, but all are full of evil. Now guess what? No such passage exists! What Paul quotes is a compilation of no less than six separate passages that have been jerked out of their original context from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, given an interpretation that cannot be found there, and strung together to appear as one quote. We have seen this deceptive practice of Paul’s before when we looked at Romans 9 where he pasted together two short passages from Genesis and Malachi concerning Jacob and Esau!

    Paul’s accuracy in quoting from the Psalms is no better. The first passage he quotes in verses 10-12 comes from Psalm 14. Here is his version again.

    As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.” Romans 3:10-12

    Now here is the passage quoted accurately, and in its context.

    The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God”. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is with the generation of the RIGHTEOUS. Psalm 14:1-5

    Guess what? In David’s picture there are no atheistic fools who do good! This passage is obviously not speaking of every human being, but of a distinct group of people whom David describes as fools, atheists, workers of abominations, corrupt, ignorant, and workers of iniquity. Of course, not one of them do good. And these evil people are contrasted with a second group of real people known as “my people” and “the generation of the righteous”. Right there in this very Psalm that Paul quotes from, there are obviously those whom God calls “righteous”! This is hardly the picture Paul wants us to get from this Psalm. Notice also Paul’s embellishment of this passage. He would have us believe the phrase, “no, not one” is used twice when it is only used once. The first time Paul uses the phrase is where it doesn’t exist, and it is coupled with the word “righteous”. This word does not exist in this part of the Psalm, or anywhere near the words “no, not one”. The word “righteous” only shows up later in verse 5, and there it directly implies that there are those who are righteous! So much for “no, not one”

    I have in the past provided you with a list of all those mentioned in both The Jewish scriptures and you NT that describes many as good and righteous. making your paul the dwarf a Liar and a fraud just like you.

    snitch 😛

  27. “I said I had used the term, Twinkie, to REFER to certain women in the third person, but did not recall directly addressing any that way (as I do address HB).”

    “You have and you did, liar!”

    Ooh! und vass yu dere, Charlie?

    “If had I personally & directly called somebody a ‘Twinkie,’ it would’ve been because she’d have had it coming — just as I call you an obnoxious a—hole because YOU’VE got it coming.

    “According to you?”

    Of course according to me. (Would you have wanted me to consult first with Ibn Ezra or the Sforno?)

    “So you freely admit it was to denigrate her on a public forum!”

    No; I freely ‘admit’ that I gave her that name to acknowledge & take note of the fact that she denigrates herself on a public forum — and that she is (apparently) content to continue doing so.

    “That you used the term Twinkie to insult her…”

    It’s an insult only if it isn’t true. It IS true.

    “… without specifying meaning to her or anyone reading your comments…”

    I’ve been addressing her as Twinkie for a couple of YEARS (or more), and she’s known the reason for all that time. Moreover, YOU’ve been aware of my giving her the name for just as long as well. It’s a little late for the sturm-und-drang

    — so you’ll pardon me while I stifle a yawn. . . .

    “calling her such a vile name?”

    “Vile”? — Twinkie??? ROFLMAOBSST!

    It’s clearly derogatory, but not vile — it’s a mild rebuke. There’s a chasm of difference between derogatory & ‘vile.’ The names I give you, BR & the other usual suspects are FAR more virulent (tho equally deserved).

    “You are a disingenuous liar”

    To be characterized as ‘disingenuous,’ and a ‘liar’ by Huff’n’puff

    — is a lot like being called “ugly” by a toad.

    ” and cowardly snitch!”

    I’m not the snitch here (at least, nobody’s ever identified anyone I’m supposed to have snitched off).

    The snitch here is (as I’ve clearly shown) none other than HB herself — who first made the (unsubstantiated) claim against YoursVeryTruly.

    I use language as I deem appropriate and you deserve each epitaph in spades….

    I think the word you’re looking for here is epithet — not “epitaph.”

    You’re continuing to deteriorate before our very eyes.

  28. @ bernard ross:

    “answer the simple question: what is that ‘certain type of woman’ that you call HB when you address her as ‘Twinkie’.”

    Why?

    “I’ve shown you the very meaning of the word”

    “No you did not… you said you used the term since the 70’s to describe that “certain type of woman”.

    I did NOT say I’d shown you the meaning of the word, “Twinkie,” you sneaky, scheming mamzer. You deliberately lifted that statement out of its context to MISREPRESENT what I did say — which was that I’d shown you the meaning of the word, “smear.” Here is the post — and context — my remark came from [#47, prev pg]:

    [Ross]: “HB’s view of herself as a deflection of your smear… is irrelevant to this discussion which is about your misogynist smears and derogatory use of the word Twinkie to describe and address her.”

    [dweller]: “What ‘smears’ would THOSE be, Mr King-of-Smears? I’ve shown you the very meaning of the word and you have YET to demonstrate anything I’ve done that remotely fits the description. Derogatory, yes. Smears, NO.

    And what’s wrong with derogatory? Bloggers on this site use terms of derogation all the time. Since when does HB come in for special, kid-gloves treatment?”

    “Your evasive behavior demonstrates your deceitfulness…”

    No evasion, no deceit.

    Rather, explicit refusal.

    I tell you flat out — as I’ve previously told you, flat out:

    — You aren’t entitled to the info — and you’re not going to get it from me.

    ” but your continuing pattern of denial demonstrates…”

    My continuing pattern demonstrates only that you can’t pressure me into or out of ANYTHING.

    Your OWN continuing pattern of pressing me demonstrates the extent of your frustration in not being able to.

    Serves you right.

    “You’re in denial, Bozole. You aren’t tossing ‘bones’. You’re just giving me opportunities for a work-out. Mentally, I’m in the gym — getting stronger, sharper & clearer — each time you ‘toss.’ So don’t let me stop you now.”

    “…the center cannot hold…”

    Have told you: no sound, no plug-ins, no videos here. If they are directed to me, they’re useless, as I cannot even open them. I-T Dept is apparently gun-shy over hackings & malware (perhaps justifiably); they’ve gotten worse about it over the past 18 months.

  29. @ bernard ross:

    “I’m a follower only of the One who made me.”

    “you said here that you were a follower of christ”

    “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…” [Jn 6:44]

    “Thus demonstrating Dwellers ability to mimic the Pauline behavior of deception and evasion. I have no idea what this bit of evasive drivel means.”

    Thus demonstrating Ross’s extraordinary disingenuousness hoist on its own petard.

    If you “have no idea” what the cited verse means, then logically you are in no position to label it ‘evasive’ — let alone, ‘drivel’ — or, for that matter, anything else. If you had understood the verse, you would know that there was no contradiction WHATSOEVER in the two comments of mine which you juxtaposed above.

    “Apparently you are incapable of honestly answering a simple question”

    Apparently YOU are incapable of honestly asking a simple question in this matter; you’ve made a series of nasty assertions but asked NO questions (‘simple’ or otherwise) — let alone, honestly asked any — in the matter thus far.

    In any case, you don’t ask honest questions ANYWAY. One can almost watch the gears in your head turning as you scheme & connive for how to set things up to take whatever answer you get to push your own agenda further down the road to come up with yet another spurious accusation.

    And I’m still waiting for YOU to show me a single instance of Paul’s ‘deceiving’ — or attempting to deceive — anybody.

    @ bernard ross:

    “i do not understand a Jew…”

    You plainly aren’t interested in understanding THIS Jew — whom you characterize as a “fake, stealth Jew.”

    “… who bases [his] beliefs on the writings of those who have swindled, libeled, tortured and slaughtered Jews for 2000 years…”

    Your ignorance betrays you. The writings in question are NOT the writings of those who did those things. The persons who did those things may have presumed to RELATE to those writings

    — but it was not THEY who did the writing.

    The writing was done almost entirely by committed JEWS.

    It wasn’t picked up by Jew-haters till at least a couple hundred years AFTER the Jews wrote it.

  30. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…” [Jn 6:44]

    “What a Jew hating vile book and belief!”

    There’s nothing ‘vile’ or ‘Jew-hating’ about what Capt Huff’n’puff quoted [in post #48, prev pg]

    — with the solitary exception of the words, “Then answered all the people” — which phrase’s authenticity has ALWAYS been highly suspect — as Huff’n’puff knows perfectly well.

    “ALL the people” were not present.

    Even all the people of Judea of that day were not present.

    Nor is it logical that it was said at all — scarcely a few hours after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem when massive crowds had turned out to welcome him. Makes no sense.

    So this is the best you can do today, Huffy? If your ass is draggin,’ there’s always Geritol. . . .

  31. dweller Said:

    Find a less public way to repay campaign sponsors (or entice potential ones) like Merck & friends? (Sound cynical

    Again he learned his lesson,

  32. @ honeybee:
    I’m as happy as a pig in manure. We won the election in Louisiana. We have now 54 seats in the Senate. If we could add Colorado and Nevada that would be 56 the most in the Senate since Hoover. Would be wonderful to have the entire
    Deep South Red. I’m going out for brunch now. Hopefully will have some news when I come back.
    Israel seems to be going for Bennett. We need conservatives in Israel. Giving land for peace have not resulted n peace. Enough with the Oslo experience to deter anyone for even thinking of giving any Israeli land. If anything J&;S should all be annexed. Finally we are seeing some progress.

  33. dweller Said:

    I said I had used the term, Twinkie, to REFER to certain women in the third person, but did not recall directly addressing any that way (as I do address HB).

    You have and you did, liar!!!!!!!!!!

    And if I had, what of it?

    You words your term your definition to which you alluded to

    I use language as I find it appropriate, and I answer to NOBODY for that.

    And we/I use ours as we find appropriate for you. If you don’t like or approve, stick it up your fat ass. AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If had I personally & directly called somebody a ‘Twinkie,” it would’ve been because she’d have had it coming — just as I call you an obnoxious a___hole because YOU’VE got it coming.

    According to you? So you freely admit it was to denigrate her on a public forum!!!!!! That you used the term Twinkie to insult her without specifying meaning to her or anyone reading your comments calling her such a vile name?

    You are a disingenuous liar and cowardly snitch!!!!

    I use language as I deem appropriate and you deserve each epitaph in spades….

  34. Bernard Ross Said:

    “Fido is unraveling, his real self is emerging with each bone he returns.”
    Dweller said:
    You’re in denial, Bozole. You aren’t tossing ‘bones’. You’re just giving me opportunities for a work-out. Mentally, I’m in the gym — getting stronger, sharper & clearer — each time you ‘toss.’ So don’t let me stop you now.

    😛
    “…the center cannot hold…”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0

  35. dweller Said:

    … in trying to ‘catch’ me ‘lying.’

    not trying, merely demonstrating the lengths to which you will go to evade exposure. Your evasive behavior demonstrates your deceitfulness but your continuing pattern of denial demonstrates your belief that as long as you do not admit to a lie then you have not been found out… the ostrich does the same. You believe, like the emperor, that everyone else does not see that you have no clothes. it is an abnormal behavior in a human being. You will go on forever in the same circular evasions and obfuscations but each time is another demonstration of your pattern, which we are ALL able to see.

  36. dweller Said:

    I’ve shown you the very meaning of the word

    No you did not… you said you used the term since the 70’s to describe that “certain type of woman”. What “certain type of woman” do you mean? a simple answer, no long posts necessary.

  37. dweller Said:

    There is no ‘deception’ here

    then answer the simple question: what is that “certain type of woman” that you call HB when you address her as “Twinkie”. Just put your answer in your own words so we can be sure that no one put words in your mouth or twisted your words. Only you can state what you mean when you use the term “twinkie” to address that “certain type of woman” Just a simple question with a simple answer, no long posts necessary.