winsor

I'll tell you what...If you can get, like...lets say, um...practically the whole freaking world as witnesses of kleptomaniac elves, you might have a point. Argumentum ad Populum. Classical fallacy, definitive nonsense. *yawn* Argumentum blah blah blah, it's getting old naugler...we're talking about faith. Even invoking Godwin does not negate the validity of the comparison. Faith != belief. One can have faith without being a believer. If you have faith that your parachute will open, that's great, but it does not necessarily entail belief. If you want to say "I believe this with every fiber of my being," that may well be true. Claiming that your belief has any effect on what is or is not true is another issue altogether. The number of people who adhere to patent nonsense has nothing to do with its being patent nonsense. If you want to claim that X number of people believing in something or another in any way proves its veracity, examples of the invalidity of such pseudo-logic are legion. Take an introductory Logic course and get back to me. BSBD, Winsor

A liberal racist remark. Liberals can't be racist. Just everyone else. I really got a kick out of being called a "racist honky motherfucker" some time back. Needless to say, the issue at hand had nothing to do with race (or Hungarians or mating with mothers, for that matter), but that appears to have been the standard defense/offense to which this guy resorted. It's kind of like the comic who noted that his mother failed to see the irony of calling him a "son of a bitch." Something about insisting upon being treated in a manner completely different than the norm, but reserving the right to object to perceived treatment in a manner different than the norm, always cracked me up. How could one not be a cynic? BSBD, Winsor

I'll tell you what...If you can get, like...lets say, um...practically the whole freaking world as witnesses of kleptomaniac elves, you might have a point. Argumentum ad Populum. Classical fallacy, definitive nonsense.

Godwin's Law rears its ugly head.

It doesn't matter. Large model airplanes have no legitimate use in our society, no constitutional protections, and should be banned for safety before terrorists abuse them. Think of the children!

Okay, I have not dug into this too deeply, but Iran has apparently decided not to execute this guy for religious reasons. They do, however, intend to execute him for rape. There is a bit of an Alice in Wonderland quality to the Iranian system of justice - such as it is. Call me a cynic, but something seems odd with a case where they conveniently have this guy dead to rights for rape. Maybe they wanted to execute him without embarrassing him, so they charged him with being apostate and left out mention of the rape until everyone made a fuss. Yeah, that could happen. BSBD, Winsor

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/29/11-year-old-football-star-told-not-to-score-too-many-touchdowns/ Not vetted yet but sounds about right. that is correct, the new america is hold everyone down until the bottom catches up. The no child left behind act is really the no child can advance until the slower ones catch up act. It's been done.

While what little I know of Bachman suggests that she is hard of thinking, I suspect that the Arab Spring uprisings will turn out to be a mixed blessing at best. The overthrow of the Czars was the result of the February Revolution, subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks was in the October Revolution. In Camden, NJ they had barely finished imprisoning most of the local government when it was noted the those who had taken office thereafter simply picked up where their predecessors had left off. Throughout history, hated despots have frequently been removed forcibly from office. They have been routinely replaced by individuals and groups that were every bit as bad - and often worse. The Anarchists and their ilk have long claimed that people are basically honest and kind and fair and decent and so forth, and that the horrible powers that be are the source of all social ills. All that needs to be done, the theory goes, is to remove the bad people from power and the world will resemble a Walt Disney movie. Unfortunately, those in power are all too often a reflection of the population. If you have an evil asshole at the helm, it is not a good sign, and there is little to suggest that their replacement will be any better. In fact, the new boss can often make the old boss look like a picture of even-handed competence by comparison. I have spent time in enough countries before and after despotism was replaced by democracy (or an approved equivalent), and all too often the original was preferable to the replacement (from the standpoint of a foreigner, at least). It all comes under the admonition that you should be careful what you ask for... BSBD, Winsor

They served an arrest warrant - taped to a Hellfire missile.

Good job.

One of the problems here is that what I see as the primary issue has become clouded by the religious angle. If some people threatening lethal force had come up and the guy, told them they would shoot him, and he said "oh yeah? I double dog dare you!," the issue would have been much clearer that he had simply challenged the assailant, and that the assailant had responded to the challenge. Watching Popeye cartoons and concluding that, after eating a can of spinach, one can stop a speeding automobile single-handed is about as valid a premise. Spinach may be good for you, but so grossly misunderstanding its benefits is suicidal. If someone was tied to a stake, asked if he had any last words before the firing squad got busy, and he responded with a prayer, fine. ("Chicken soup? How can that help? He's dead!" "Couldn't hurt") If he had said "In the name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, I beg you for mercy" and the guy shot him, I would be sympathetic. The issue is thus blurred. The perceived stupidity is not the particular nature of the challenge this individual put before the assailant, it is the fact that he stated out loud that the assailant could do him no harm. The assailant tested this hypothesis, with fatal results. To use the Atheist angle, it would be as brilliant as telling the assailant "I don't believe you could shoot me!" Stupidity has no religious affiliation. BSBD, Winsor

Argumentum ad Populum - Classical Fallacy. Which account? Three reports (initial, handwritten and typed) were submitted by the Trooper - none of which agreed with each other, and none of which were consistent with the one (1) call entered into evidence. There was one call documented, with rumors of another. The contents of the very short call were a combination of prevarication (I did maintain the speed limit while passing a truck, such that the approaching vehicle was compelled to let off on the gas), and outright fabrication (if you want to get someone pulled over and searched, what claim can you make with impunity to achieve that purpose?). There were four in the trunk. Their claimed locations changed every time the issue came up. At one point it was stated that they were all under my feet in the driver's footwell. Tough shit. You brought it up, and I sure as hell am not done with it. BSBD, Winsor

You know what...don't answer. I don't care. I am done with this. You already said that - and you have the balls to call me a liar?

You are not paying attention. I do not dispute that I had licensed firearms, or that my license was not recognized by Ohio. I did note that, since I was charged with nothing else, the supposition of guilt for crimes that I did not commit is unconstitutional and downright immoral. If you want to hold something against me, I have the right to demand due process.

She weighs the same as a duck and she admitted it. The process may have had its flaws but you can't argue the result. Actually, it had not occurred to me that anyone could have viewed either the process or the results as anything but an exercise in absurdity.

I am a fan of giving them a FAIR TRIAL and hanging them. The fair trial part of the deal is, admittedly, problematic, but simply putting someone to death is likely more merciful in the long run than having the system toy with them as does as cat with its prey. The "witch" was found to be so by as careful a rendering of the "facts" as I encountered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU BSBD, Winsor

And then, if you're saying that the 911 calls didn't describe you driving along pointing your fingers/gun at people then I would be quite interested in hearing your explanation of how two unrelated people, in a short period of time, happened to both feel the need to phone the police accusing you of doing something you weren't doing... A) There was one call. There was no reference to a finger in the call. B) A second name was introduced, that of a co-worker of the first caller. There was no record of the contents of any second call. C) The name associated with the call that was recieved and the second name were those of co-workers, who had been associated for a period of years. D) The second name was that of someone who was deceased by the time my attorney's investigator determined who these people were. When I was stopped I had every reason to believe I was on the side of the angels (as it were). I was not informed until later of the accusations for which I was neither charged nor afforded the opportunity to defend myself. I am confident that justice will prevail at some stage of the game. BSBD, Winsor

WTF is it you think you're talking about? I think that's a reference to this, from message #65, in which you admitted you were the defendent: State v. Naugler Wow. JR's new low .... Not to worry. If it's on the internet, it must be the unvarnished truth. You know, GIGO - garbage in, gospel out. BSBD, Winsor Were you not the defendant in the case mentioned? Yes, and the only thing with which I was charged was exercising the priveleges of a Pennyslvania License to Carry while in Ohio. Ohio had passed a carry law, but it was not ENACTED until after I was pulled over. Ironically enough, in order to get an Ohio carry license, one is requred to pass a course taught by a Certified Pistol Instructor - credentials I possessed for fully a quarter of a century. The one call that was made was by an individual who was enraged at having to slow to the speed limit for the ten seconds it took me to pass a truck (the speed limit for trucks was 55 and cars 65 at the time). The caller turned out to be actively engaged in Interstate Flight to Avoid Prosecution, but it was easier to hang on to me than to find them. The actual contents of the call were vague to the extreme, and all of the "details" noted in the link JR posted were from a process of "telegraph." The whole experience was akin to the witchcraft trial in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" - with the exception that the Monty Python crew was joking. I did not do anything of a nefarious nature, and the problem I faced was an absolute lack of contrition. Logic I can counter. An assault of unbridled, unfocused emotion is a different thing altogether. BSBD, Winsor

WTF is it you think you're talking about? I think that's a reference to this, from message #65, in which you admitted you were the defendent: State v. Naugler Wow. JR's new low .... Not to worry. If it's on the internet, it must be the unvarnished truth. You know, GIGO - garbage in, gospel out. BSBD, Winsor

WTF is it you think you're talking about?

Are you the same Winsor Naugler as the Winsor Naugler III in: State v. Naugler, 2005-Ohio-6274? Yup, that's me. All demonstrably false. Except the part about pointing out stupidity, of course. BSBD, Winsor

Who said anything about defending. Hopefully for you, there will be les people around who will continually enjoy making fun of them or their perceived stupidity. How come I have not seen you mocking Mychal Judge. He was praying Jesus, please end this right now! God, please end this!, the moment he was killed. Would you care to display this open mockery, say in front of New York City fire house? Will your words be just as strong in front of them? Or, are you really nothing more than a typical internet commando? I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, which I suspect makes it unanimous. If Judge was praying while carrying wounded to safety, fine. If he was praying INSTEAD of helping, I am unimpressed. When I was 13 the attempt was made to give me Extreme Unction/Last Rites before going into surgery from which I was not expected to recover. I sent them packing in no uncertain terms. I assure you that I do not show one iota more respect for contemptible behavior in person than I do online - not that it matters. WYSIWYG. You clearly have no idea who and what I am, and I am uninterested in who and what you are. Go forth and prosper. BSBD, Winsor

Why? I do not claim to tap into some means of interfering with physical reality. If I do something that has consequences that are known in advance, I do not expect to get a pass on said consequences. Where did that come from? Why do you suppose that taking someone to task for a fatal bout of stupidity implies that I expect any particular immunity? If someone I loved was stupid enough to invite the application of lethal force, I assure you that I would not defend said stupidity. Having said that, the person who inflicted said lethal force would have made a very grave mistake in doing so. BSBD. Winsor

Depending on your view of reality this could be true, I'm just saying I have found your position to be false. You haven't experienced what I have, my relationship with God is personal and real. Only God can grant you the faith to live a life devoted to Him. It all starts with a genuine search for truth. Have you given yourself even to the possibility of God? I am kind of flattered, as if a junkie had offered me some heroin. "Hey, man, you should try some of this - it's great! I can't even get the needle out of my arm before all my pain is gone and everything I was worried about turns out not to matter at all!" If you stick to the claim that having an invisible friend makes you feel better, that's fine. Feeling better is a good thing. When you cross the line and claim that your invisible friend has magical powers, and that you are now immune to the laws of Physics, your standpoint is immediately and demonstrably false. Delusion has wide appeal, since reality has a tendency to be nasty. The Disney version of nature is a whole lot more pleasant than most of what one encounters in person, for example. Your standpoint that what constitutes "reality" is somehow negotiable immediately discredits whatever else you might claim. I reserve the right to summarily dismiss contentions made upon the basis of hand-waving. I am not trying to sway you to my stance. If you are happy with your invisible friend, great. However, given the choice of being a blissful junkie or living a life of pain, I am cool with the pain. BSBD, Winsor

Holy shit, Windsor. I've been lock step with most of the things you've posted here about religion, but this is petty, mean bullshit. The kid didn't go out one evening waving a bible and provoking someone into attacking him because he though Jesus would get his back... He walked out of a bible study and was attacked and killed. He had no tangible way to defend himself. He resorted to the only thing he had to work with, which was his faith. Even if you think his faith was misguided, there's no honor at all in being such a complete prick about it. Look, the dumb son of a bitch told someone pointing a gun at him that the gun would not work. It seems he was as wrong about that as he was about everything. Being too stupid to live is not a particularly sympathetic condition. The assailant should be put to sleep as a matter of course, but the deceased took a Darwinian approach to the encounter - with wholly predictable results.