Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"

Does this guy ever say anything positive??

On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <none@no.com> wrote:

>Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
>the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>
>Does this guy ever say anything positive??

No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.

On 5/30/23 5:15 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 May 2023 at 11:16:42 UTC-4, Saunderlin wrote:
>> Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
>> the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>>
>> Does this guy ever say anything positive??
>
> Off topic.

So "Vietnam replaces some things from U.S. Chinoid trade issues" was on
topic, huh?

On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
>> >the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>> >
>> >Does this guy ever say anything positive??
>> No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
>
>Better than being a left-wing D.B. with no interest in ground-based astronomy. WTF are you even here??

Left-wing = has a moral compass.

How many images do you take from the ground? I take thousands a month.
(And I've never had one ruined by a satellite track.) Look at the
images on my website. Every one is made from subs with airplanes or
satellites or cosmic ray tracks. See any? That's what I thought.

I live under some of the darkest skies on the planet. I spend lots of
time outside seeing the sky. I've never seen a Starlink satellite
except in twilight when they're still bunched together within a few
days of launch. Because they are pretty much invisible any other time.
Watch carefully and a satellite can usually be seen every five minutes
or so if it's not too far from sunrise or sunset. But you usually have
to look. Most people have never noticed one.

On 5/31/23 10:13 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
>>>> the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>>>>
>>>> Does this guy ever say anything positive??
>>> No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
>>
>> Better than being a left-wing D.B. with no interest in ground-based astronomy. WTF are you even here??
>
> Left-wing = has a moral compass.
>
> How many images do you take from the ground? I take thousands a month.
> (And I've never had one ruined by a satellite track.) Look at the
> images on my website. Every one is made from subs with airplanes or
> satellites or cosmic ray tracks. See any? That's what I thought.
>
> I live under some of the darkest skies on the planet. I spend lots of
> time outside seeing the sky. I've never seen a Starlink satellite
> except in twilight when they're still bunched together within a few
> days of launch. Because they are pretty much invisible any other time.
> Watch carefully and a satellite can usually be seen every five minutes
> or so if it's not too far from sunrise or sunset. But you usually have
> to look. Most people have never noticed one.

This is what I'm getting at. When it comes to the satellites,
everything he posts is based on theory and not facts. How does he know,
for certain, that satellites are ruining astronomy if he has never taken
the time to go through the image processing routine himself (acquiring,
stacking, and processing)?

Sitting behind a PC spouting non-factual gibberish wastes time when he
could be out there determining the facts on his own, but I think the
saying applies about not teaching an old dog new tricks I'm afraid,
because such suggestions have been offered many times and he chooses to
continue complaining.

On 5/31/23 10:23 AM, Saunderlin wrote:
> On 5/31/23 10:13 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as
>>>>> being
>>>>> the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this guy ever say anything positive??
>>>> No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
>>>
>>> Better than being a left-wing D.B. with no interest in ground-based
>>> astronomy.  WTF are you even here??
>>
>> Left-wing = has a moral compass.
>>
>> How many images do you take from the ground? I take thousands a month.
>> (And I've never had one ruined by a satellite track.) Look at the
>> images on my website. Every one is made from subs with airplanes or
>> satellites or cosmic ray tracks. See any? That's what I thought.
>>
>> I live under some of the darkest skies on the planet. I spend lots of
>> time outside seeing the sky. I've never seen a Starlink satellite
>> except in twilight when they're still bunched together within a few
>> days of launch. Because they are pretty much invisible any other time.
>> Watch carefully and a satellite can usually be seen every five minutes
>> or so if it's not too far from sunrise or sunset. But you usually have
>> to look. Most people have never noticed one.
>
> This is what I'm getting at.  When it comes to the satellites,
> everything he posts is based on theory and not facts.  How does he know,
> for certain, that satellites are ruining astronomy if he has never taken
> the time to go through the image processing routine himself (acquiring,
> stacking, and processing)?
>
> Sitting behind a PC spouting non-factual gibberish wastes time when he
> could be out there determining the facts on his own, but I think the
> saying applies about not teaching an old dog new tricks I'm afraid,
> because such suggestions have been offered many times and he chooses to
> continue complaining.
And I forgot to note that they are HIS theories and therefore not even
close to scientific ones because those who put the theoretical into
practice already know the facts.

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 8:13:48 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
> > > >the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
> > > >
> > > >Does this guy ever say anything positive??
> > >
> > > No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
> >
> >Better than being a left-wing D.B....
>
> Left-wing = has a moral compass.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill

:-)

On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 8:13:48?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
>> > > >the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>> > > >
>> > > >Does this guy ever say anything positive??
>> > >
>> > > No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
>> >
>> >Better than being a left-wing D.B....
>>
>> Left-wing = has a moral compass.
>
>“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
>at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
>
>:-)

Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue you're quoting there! Moral
conservatives are socially progressive.

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:06:17 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 8:13:48?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
> >> > > >the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Does this guy ever say anything positive??
> >> > >
> >> > > No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
> >> >
> >> >Better than being a left-wing D.B....
> >>
> >> Left-wing = has a moral compass.
> >
> >“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
> >at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
> >
> > :-)
>
> Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue you're quoting there!

Truth comes from the strangest places :-)

> Moral conservatives are socially progressive.

Ri-i-i-ght. Like open the border so cartels can get rich smuggling
fentanyl and abusing women and children while they're at it?
Elect a corrupt Manchurian candidate puppet who promotes
spending the country into oblivion? Letting male bullies humiliate
women athletes? Pushing indoctrination of children rather than
educating them?

The only valid "socially progressive" activity, IMHO, would be to
get the homeless integrated back into society, which both parties
have failed spectacularly at doing. Many of them should be in
institutions, but "social progressives" are too busy advocating for
"progress" in multi-gender nonsense and feeling sorry sorry for
criminals:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=a+policeman%27s+lot+gilbert+and+sullivan#id=4&vid=0626abb0dd7fadc8d9c4f4369e582fa4&action=view

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:06:17?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
>> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 8:13:48?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 30 May 2023 21:37:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 00:23:41 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> > > On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:16:39 -0400, Saunderlin <no...@no.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >Almost everyone's heard of a "megalopolis" so think of the size as being
>> >> > > >the same as Rich's negativity... a "negalopolis"
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Does this guy ever say anything positive??
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No. He's a bitter old hateful spiteful asshole.
>> >> >
>> >> >Better than being a left-wing D.B....
>> >>
>> >> Left-wing = has a moral compass.
>> >
>> >“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
>> >at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
>> >
>> > :-)
>>
>> Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue you're quoting there!
>
>Truth comes from the strangest places :-)
>
>> Moral conservatives are socially progressive.
>
>Ri-i-i-ght. Like open the border so cartels can get rich smuggling
>fentanyl and abusing women and children while they're at it?
>Elect a corrupt Manchurian candidate puppet who promotes
>spending the country into oblivion? Letting male bullies humiliate
>women athletes? Pushing indoctrination of children rather than
>educating them?
>
>The only valid "socially progressive" activity, IMHO, would be to
>get the homeless integrated back into society, which both parties
>have failed spectacularly at doing. Many of them should be in
>institutions, but "social progressives" are too busy advocating for
>"progress" in multi-gender nonsense and feeling sorry sorry for
>criminals:
>
>https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=a+policeman%27s+lot+gilbert+and+sullivan#id=4&vid=0626abb0dd7fadc8d9c4f4369e582fa4&action=view

There is no open border. That said, a more open border is certainly a
highly moral position to take.

Progressives are interested in helping the homeless, even if they
don't know how. "Conservatives" (which are anything but) care nothing
for these people. Most are Christians, and therefore consider them to
be moral failures who can be abandoned.

Nobody gets indoctrinated in schools. That is what churches do.

You've swallowed the Koolaid and reveal yourself to be a moral monster
in your comments here.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:10:14 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:06:17?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> > > <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
> > > >at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue you're quoting there!
> >
> > Truth comes from the strangest places :-)
> >
> > > Moral conservatives are socially progressive.
> >
> > Ri-i-i-ght. Like open the border so cartels can get rich smuggling
> > fentanyl and abusing women and children while they're at it?
> > Elect a corrupt Manchurian candidate puppet who promotes
> > spending the country into oblivion? Letting male bullies humiliate
> > women athletes? Pushing indoctrination of children rather than
> > educating them?
> >
> > The only valid "socially progressive" activity, IMHO, would be to
> > get the homeless integrated back into society, which both parties
> > have failed spectacularly at doing. Many of them should be in
> > institutions, but "social progressives" are too busy advocating for
> > "progress" in multi-gender nonsense and feeling sorry sorry for
> > criminals:
> >
> > https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=a+policeman%27s+lot+gilbert+and+sullivan#id=4&vid=0626abb0dd7fadc8d9c4f4369e582fa4&action=view

> There is no open border.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/crisis-border-happened/story?id=78312099

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/16/politics/biden-immigration-crisis-title-42/index.html

> That said, a more open border is certainly a highly moral position to take.

More "open" than the crisis there now? What's moral about women and
children being raped by criminal cartels? And what's "moral" about having a
law against illegal illegal immigration, which can easily be changed by a vote
of the people, and breaking it anyway? Those who do it must not believe in
democracy. Is fascism moral?

> Progressives are interested in helping the homeless, even if they
> don't know how. "Conservatives" (which are anything but) care nothing
> for these people.

This is a VERY prejudiced view. The "help" that "progressives" offer is
giving them free needles and doing nothing about the fentanyl that's
killing them off. At least "conservatives" want to close the border to
reduce illegal crossings and drug trafficking.

> Most are Christians, and therefore consider them to be moral failures
> who can be abandoned.

This is complete nonsense. An easy search reveals many, many sites
that refute such a ridiculous assertion. Just a few:

https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/immigration-refugee-services/

https://www.lirs.org/join-lirs-in-saying-no-to-president-bidens-proposed-asylum-ban/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-churches-are-helping-asylum-seekers-on-both-sides-of-the-southern-border.html

> Nobody gets indoctrinated in schools.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/09/politics/education-government-role-what-matters/index.html

https://spectator.org/public-schools-gender-radical-reshaping/

Indoctrination is obviously happening in schools. Denial of reality
is a common "progressive" failing.

> That is what churches do.

Contrary to what the schools are doing, parents decide IF (or how) they
want their children "indoctrinated."

> You've swallowed the Koolaid and reveal yourself to be a moral monster
> in your comments here.

:-)) Pot, kettle, black. You seem unable to see the "handwriting on the wall."
Study a little history.

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
-- George Washington

"Three of the most civilizing tools known to humanity: the Bible,
a repeating rifle and two parents." -- Barry Weir

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:10:14?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
>> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:06:17?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
>> > > <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
>> > > >at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
>> > > >
>> > > > :-)
>> > >
>> > > Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue you're quoting there!
>> >
>> > Truth comes from the strangest places :-)
>> >
>> > > Moral conservatives are socially progressive.
>> >
>> > Ri-i-i-ght. Like open the border so cartels can get rich smuggling
>> > fentanyl and abusing women and children while they're at it?
>> > Elect a corrupt Manchurian candidate puppet who promotes
>> > spending the country into oblivion? Letting male bullies humiliate
>> > women athletes? Pushing indoctrination of children rather than
>> > educating them?
>> >
>> > The only valid "socially progressive" activity, IMHO, would be to
>> > get the homeless integrated back into society, which both parties
>> > have failed spectacularly at doing. Many of them should be in
>> > institutions, but "social progressives" are too busy advocating for
>> > "progress" in multi-gender nonsense and feeling sorry sorry for
>> > criminals:
>> >
>> > https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=a+policeman%27s+lot+gilbert+and+sullivan#id=4&vid=0626abb0dd7fadc8d9c4f4369e582fa4&action=view
>
>> There is no open border.
>
>https://abcnews.go.com/US/crisis-border-happened/story?id=78312099
>
>https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/16/politics/biden-immigration-crisis-title-42/index.html
>
>> That said, a more open border is certainly a highly moral position to take.
>
>More "open" than the crisis there now? What's moral about women and
>children being raped by criminal cartels? And what's "moral" about having a
>law against illegal illegal immigration, which can easily be changed by a vote
>of the people, and breaking it anyway? Those who do it must not believe in
>democracy. Is fascism moral?
>
>> Progressives are interested in helping the homeless, even if they
>> don't know how. "Conservatives" (which are anything but) care nothing
>> for these people.
>
>This is a VERY prejudiced view. The "help" that "progressives" offer is
>giving them free needles and doing nothing about the fentanyl that's
>killing them off. At least "conservatives" want to close the border to
>reduce illegal crossings and drug trafficking.
>
>> Most are Christians, and therefore consider them to be moral failures
>> who can be abandoned.
>
>This is complete nonsense. An easy search reveals many, many sites
>that refute such a ridiculous assertion. Just a few:
>
>https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/immigration-refugee-services/
>
>https://www.lirs.org/join-lirs-in-saying-no-to-president-bidens-proposed-asylum-ban/
>
>https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-churches-are-helping-asylum-seekers-on-both-sides-of-the-southern-border.html
>
>> Nobody gets indoctrinated in schools.
>
>https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/09/politics/education-government-role-what-matters/index.html
>
>https://spectator.org/public-schools-gender-radical-reshaping/
>
>Indoctrination is obviously happening in schools. Denial of reality
>is a common "progressive" failing.
>
>> That is what churches do.
>
>Contrary to what the schools are doing, parents decide IF (or how) they
>want their children "indoctrinated."
>
>> You've swallowed the Koolaid and reveal yourself to be a moral monster
>> in your comments here.
>
>:-)) Pot, kettle, black. You seem unable to see the "handwriting on the wall."
>Study a little history.
>
>“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
>-- George Washington
>
>"Three of the most civilizing tools known to humanity: the Bible,
>a repeating rifle and two parents." -- Barry Weir

Your racism, hatred, and white supremacy shine through.

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 4:01:36 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:10:14?PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:22:33 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> > > <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 7:06:17?AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> > > > > <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
> > > > > >at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)

A reply to Peterson's self-righteous assertion: "Left-wing = has a moral compass."
Perhaps his compass was made by Tates :-)

Back in the 1800s the Tates Watch Company of Massachusetts wanted to produce
other products and, since they already made the cases for watches, they used them
to produce compasses. The new compasses were so bad that people often ended
up in Canada or Mexico rather than California. This, of course, is the origin of the
expression, "He who has a Tates is lost!"

> > > > > Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue you're quoting there!
> > > >
> > > > Truth comes from the strangest places :-)
> > > >
> > > > > Moral conservatives are socially progressive.
> > > >
> > > > Ri-i-i-ght. Like open the border so cartels can get rich smuggling
> > > > fentanyl and abusing women and children while they're at it?
> > > > Elect a corrupt Manchurian candidate puppet who promotes
> > > > spending the country into oblivion? Letting male bullies humiliate
> > > > women athletes? Pushing indoctrination of children rather than
> > > > educating them?
> >> >
> > > > The only valid "socially progressive" activity, IMHO, would be to
> > > > get the homeless integrated back into society, which both parties
> > > > have failed spectacularly at doing. Many of them should be in
> > > > institutions, but "social progressives" are too busy advocating for
> > > > "progress" in multi-gender nonsense and feeling sorry sorry for
> > > > criminals:
> > > >
> > > > https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=ymyy-t-s&ei=UTF-8&p=a+policeman%27s+lot+gilbert+and+sullivan#id=4&vid=0626abb0dd7fadc8d9c4f4369e582fa4&action=view
> >
> > > There is no open border.
> >
> > https://abcnews.go.com/US/crisis-border-happened/story?id=78312099
> >
> > https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/16/politics/biden-immigration-crisis-title-42/index.html
> >
> > > That said, a more open border is certainly a highly moral position to take.
> >
> > More "open" than the crisis there now? What's moral about women and
> > children being raped by criminal cartels? And what's "moral" about having a
> > law against illegal illegal immigration, which can easily be changed by a vote
> > of the people, and breaking it anyway? Those who do it must not believe in
> > democracy. Is fascism moral?
> >
> > > Progressives are interested in helping the homeless, even if they
> > > don't know how. "Conservatives" (which are anything but) care nothing
> > > for these people.
> >
> > This is a VERY prejudiced view. The "help" that "progressives" offer is
> > giving them free needles and doing nothing about the fentanyl that's
> > killing them off. At least "conservatives" want to close the border to
> > reduce illegal crossings and drug trafficking.
> >
> > > Most are Christians, and therefore consider them to be moral failures
> > > who can be abandoned.
> >
> > This is complete nonsense. An easy search reveals many, many sites
> > that refute such a ridiculous assertion. Just a few:
> >
> > https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/immigration-refugee-services/
> >
> > https://www.lirs.org/join-lirs-in-saying-no-to-president-bidens-proposed-asylum-ban/
> >
> > https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-churches-are-helping-asylum-seekers-on-both-sides-of-the-southern-border.html
> >
> > > Nobody gets indoctrinated in schools.
> >
> > https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/09/politics/education-government-role-what-matters/index.html
> >
> > https://spectator.org/public-schools-gender-radical-reshaping/
> >
> > Indoctrination is obviously happening in schools. Denial of reality
> > is a common "progressive" failing.
> >
> > > That is what churches do.
> >
> > Contrary to what the schools are doing, parents decide IF (or how) they
> > want their children "indoctrinated."
> >
> > > You've swallowed the Koolaid and reveal yourself to be a moral monster
> > > in your comments here.
> >
> > :-)) Pot, kettle, black. You seem unable to see the "handwriting on the wall."
> > Study a little history.
> >
> > “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
> > -- George Washington
> >
> > "Three of the most civilizing tools known to humanity: the Bible,
> > a repeating rifle and two parents." -- Barry Weir
>
> Your racism, hatred, and white supremacy shine through.

"If you put a few AlkaSeltzer tablets in your mouth, it will make you
froth more convincingly." == Jan P. B.

:-))) This is the typical "progressive" response to rational and reasoned
thought. I'm not a "racist" nor do I "hate" anyone nor am I a jingoistic
left-wing straw man. Peterson's responses contain a couple of fallacies
used instead of critical thinking, described in Sagan's baloney detection kit:

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

1. Ad hominem
18. straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack

This sub-thread began with a witty quote by Winston Churchill and has devolved
into a hate-filled rant by Chris. Apparently, he is offended by quotes from
renowned historical people.

"When you stop laughing, that’s when the trouble begins." -- Buddhist Monk

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 05:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

You are a racist, homophobic hater, as anybody can see from your
comments. That is not an ad hominem. It is an accurate assessment.

I am from the Human Race as a biological fact, what 'race' is everyone else from?.

Natural selection weaponised the existing notion of 'races' by misusing the Earth science of biology and written as an evolutionary narrative where black complexion people were considered closer biologically to gorillas than white complexion Europeans-

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man

The accuser who uses the term 'racist' along with racism, racial, interracial, biracial and so on is far worse than the object of his accusation even if that person is prejudiced.

Instead of undoing natural selection with its favoured/less favoured 'races', the geneticists try to make the Human Race a social construct instead of the biological fact that it is. The Human Race is comprised of many complexions and cultures but not 'races' nor the accusation that one person can be a racist as an accuser or an object of the accusation.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:47:19 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 05:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You are a racist,

I have said nothing about race, so this indicates another logical
fallacy:

11. non sequitur

> homophobic hater,

I have said nothing against homo sapiens :-)
Nor gays nor lesbians. I said something SO obvious that any
honest person must agree that this is contrary to basic
decency: "Letting male bullies humiliate >women athletes":
"Lea Thomas" is a bully. And I'll say that anyone who believes
he or she can be any gender they choose is an unscientific
cave(wo)man who rejects the scientific evidence of their DNA.

> as anybody can see from your comments. That is not an ad
> hominem. It is an accurate assessment.

Au contraire, it's a rant against science and rational thought by
someone who has drunk way too much Kool-Aid :-)) This is
typical of today's "left wing": Divisive, unscientific, censoring
baloney-spewers who eschew REAL liberalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism